Alternative to 'Skeptic'?

[Admin]

I thought I'd start this thread to see if anyone has any thoughts about an alternative label to 'Skeptic'.

Now, I've had this debate before and seen it in other places and whilst most people agree that there are many problems with the label 'Skeptic', it is surprisingly difficult to come up with a better alternative.

Skepticism is a method of assessing claims. A 'Skeptic' is someone who uses skepticism in assessing claims. Simple as that. I think of a Skeptic as someone who will not accept claims unless there is good reason to do so.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a different label. Any thoughts? ???

[median]

What about 'Critical Thinker'?

It might circumvent all the philosophical baggage that goes with the skeptic term

[Dr B]

I thought I'd start this thread to see if anyone has any thoughts about an alternative label to 'Skeptic'.

Now, I've had this debate before and seen it in other places and whilst most people agree that there are many problems with the label 'Skeptic', it is surprisingly difficult to come up with a better alternative.

Skepticism is a method of assessing claims. A 'Skeptic' is someone who uses skepticism in assessing claims. Simple as that. I think of a Skeptic as someone who will not accept claims unless there is good reason to do so.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a different label. Any thoughts? ???



I think a scientist and a critical thinker also use methods to asses claims - it is not unique to skepticism.

The public perception is that 'skeptic' can be a bit 'right-wing'

The JREF talk about promoting critical thinking - which i think seems more inviting (not the fourm - but the foundation itself).

I agree with median on this one. However, skeptic is shorter and 'catchy' 8)

[Essex]

How about septic. It's shorter and it's catchy (or it implies catching something)
and it shows that you're not afraid to wade into the poo occasionally

[Zendal Darkman]

How about septic. It's shorter and it's catchy (or it implies catching something)
and it shows that you're not afraid to wade into the poo occasionally

:-\ :-\
...I think I prefer skeptic.

[kath23]

Septic tank lol.

We take away all the world's balloney :)

I like 'atheist' but that's my personal preference. To me it adds a spiritual dimension to scepticism, asserting the power of man and holding nothing to be above being questioned.

Love
Kath

[chillzero]

Septic tank lol.

We take away all the world's balloney :)

I like 'atheist' but that's my personal preference. To me it adds a spiritual dimension to scepticism, asserting the power of man and holding nothing to be above being questioned.

Love
Kath


But not all skeptics are atheist.

eta: nor are all atheists skeptics.

[seren]

Questioners. Objective thinkers.

Truth Seekers- I like that, it's really New Agey. :P

The Anti-Gullibility League.

Proofmongers

Non-scientific application of critical thinking people.

NSEF = Not So Easily Fooled

[Mongrel]

Questioners. Objective thinkers.

Truth Seekers- I like that, it's really New Agey. :P

The Anti-Gullibility League.

Proofmongers

Non-scientific application of critical thinking people.

NSEF = Not So Easily Fooled





I'd steer clear of 'Truth Seekers', it's been hijacked by the 9/11 Conspriacy Theorists :(

[seren]

Alright then, how about Indigo Children?

*ducks*

[Admin]

Closed-minded materialist debunkers :D

Oh hang on...

I've been reading Victor Zammit again. ;D


See, it's difficult to come up with something better.

I agree though that critical thinking is at the heart of skepticism. In fact the two are hard to distinguish. ???

One advantage with 'skeptics' is a result of one of its drawbacks. We've been getting quite a few media enquiries and a lot of this is because journalists/broadcasters etc. when dealing with various topics look for the 'opposing' point of view and they naturally tend to think of 'skeptics'.

I think we may just have to stick with 'skeptic' and do our best to promote what it really means than to change the label.

Unless someone can come up with a 'killer' name that is. ;)

[Dr B]

Closed-minded materialist debunkers :D

Oh hang on...

I've been reading Victor Zammit again. ;D


See, it's difficult to come up with something better.

I agree though that critical thinking is at the heart of skepticism. In fact the two are hard to distinguish. ???

One advantage with 'skeptics' is a result of one of its drawbacks. We've been getting quite a few media enquiries and a lot of this is because journalists/broadcasters etc. when dealing with various topics look for the 'opposing' point of view and they naturally tend to think of 'skeptics'.

I think we may just have to stick with 'skeptic' and do our best to promote what it really means than to change the label.

Unless someone can come up with a 'killer' name that is. ;)


And this is the problem John. The media try to polarise us - i dont think many of us, in the real world, agree with this polarisation. However, as long as the media portray us all as arguing strongly against any woo-type-notion in an almost out of hand manner, we are up for being misrepresented before we comment. Just a thought. O0

[Jocky]

I know of a certain woo (beloved of Dr B and Median, too) whose preferred term is the hyphenated ad-hominem "skeptical-deniers" >:(

I actually don't mind the term "skeptic" - the initial negative reaction can be quite a good conversation-opener. "Critical thinker" is OK, but people tend to misunderstand the word "critical" - thinking it means that you just criticize everything :D

My favourite of the alternatives proposed so far is "Objective thinker".

The problem with using anything with "science" in it is that

1. People will think it's too complicated for the likes of them
2. Those of woo-ish bent will instantly think "Science doesn't know everything" (oh yes, we all know and love that old chestnut, don't we ::) )
3. It might look a bit silly in the context of people like Rupert Sheldrake, who is a "real scientist", earned PhD and all, but who is in that unfortunate class of scientist to which Dr B alluded who have eschewed critical thinking for the ways of woo.

And nobody's even mentioned the "Brights"

*ducks down next to seren*

[vbloke]

I always liked "I'm a cabinet member in the Office for Reality", but it's a bit of a mouthful.

[kath23]

And nobody's even mentioned the "Brights"

*ducks down next to seren*


Do people not like the Brights? Is it too obnoxious to be a Bright? :)

My fiance says we should call ourselves 'fluffy bubbles,' for who could dislike a fluffy bubble? ;D

[Jocky]

Do people not like the Brights? Is it too obnoxious to be a Bright?

There is some controversy over the appropriateness of the term (there's a thread here somewhere which discusses this). Personally, I don't like the implication that those who don't call themselves Brights are by definition 'Dims'.


My fiance says we should call ourselves 'fluffy bubbles,' for who could dislike a fluffy bubble?

By the look of the avatar, it would seem that Cuddles agrees with him :)

[Admin]

I knew that Brights would be mentioned.

I think that the Brights have shown us just how difficult it is to attempt a re-branding.

My biggest bugbear is that people don't have a clue about what skepticism actually is. You know, things like "I believe in the afterlife, I believe that Sylvia Browne talks to the dead but I'm the world's biggest skeptic of Derek Acorah". That type of thing.

The popular notion is that skepticism = disbelief; or worse still a refusal to accept anything despite evidence. ::)

If we had another name, we would still have to face the task of having to clarify what we are about but at least we wouldn't be, initially at least, faced with misconceptions.

The hard part is getting the name right. 'Brights' smacks of smugness. 'Science' can seem too complicated for many. etc.

I did once try to write down all the combinations of adjectives we often use (critical thinking, evidence-based, rational, empirical, etc.) to see if I could come up with something catchy - but I didn't. :(

Skeptic also has the advantage of being a one-word description. UK-rational thinkers who base their worldview on evidence and reason, doesn't have the same ring to it as UK-Skeptics ;D

Perhaps a good acronym is what we need.

[Cuddles]

Another problem is that if we try to re-brand ourselves (why does this make me feel like a soft drink?), it can be seen as saying we are something different from skeptics. This will bring the obvious questions of how are we different from skeptics and what is wrong with skepticsim that made us decide to change? It would effectively create different factions of skepticism, which may have all the same ideas about skeptical thought, but would be seen as different by everyone else. This can only serve to weaken the message.

[Dr B]

For me, its not about changing the name UK-skeptics.....I think its fine, but the sub-heading "promoting the benefits of skepticism" might need thought.

Because we already have the word skeptic in the title - does it need mentioning in the sub-title? I dont know - its just a thought.

if everyone understood skeptic it would be fine - but because the very people you are trying to reach may bring their baggage with them may mean we are starting at the bottom of a big mountain rather than half way up a small one ;D

Keep the title definitely, but mission statements and sub-headings may need thinking about. Off the top of my head,

"Promoting the benefits of rational thinking"
"Promoting the benefits of constructional doubt"
"Promoting the benefits of clear thinking"
"Promoting the benefits of science and reason"
"Promoting the benefits and need for rational thinking in modern society"

none of them perfect and probably most of them crap....ah well....it is the weekend (nearly.... :D)

[Admin]

The subheading....

I think I may have put that in just to have something as a subtitle. It was never really 'decided upon'.

I agree - it certainly could be better.

UK-Skeptics
Revealing to people how stupid they are.

;D ;D ;D

Perhaps not.

I'll have a think.

[Dr B]

fantastic john.....you made my day ;D ;D

[vbloke]

The subheading....

I think I may have put that in just to have something as a subtitle. It was never really 'decided upon'.

I agree - it certainly could be better.

UK-Skeptics
Revealing to people how stupid they are.

;D ;D ;D

Perhaps not.

I'll have a think.

genius!

how about:

UK-Skeptics
Because you're not as smart as you think you am

[median]

UK Skeptics

Less dense, more sense

Or...

Uk Skeptics

We're critical about everything. :D

[tkingdoll]

I don't think the label is important to anyone except for skeptics, in the same way I don't think organised skepticism is attractive to anyone except skeptics (or wannabe skeptics). I think what's important is the work that skeptics do to get information and critical thinking methodology into the general public, and by far the best way to achieve that is to not call it anything, or call it science education rather than something formal and alien like skepticism.

Most people will not and cannot ever be 'skeptics', so when marketing an organisation like UK Skeptics, we need to think very carefully about who we are actually aiming ourselves at, and potential 'skeptics' is a very small market indeed.

That's a different market to that our objectives are aimed at (the public), if you see what I mean.

I have lots to say on this subject but too much work to do today to write much :(

[sonofajoiner]

Proofmongers


;D
That's definitely a winner!!

[Admin]

Has anyone noticed that I changed the subtitle weeks ago? ???