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:

1. 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......
2. 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.

[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 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. The Skeptico Blog 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

[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.