This is a document (attached) produced by the Skeptics Society in the USA which includes a whole load of ideas for active skepticism.
Some of them pertain to individual action but a lot of them apply to a group like UK-Skeptics.
Rather than me setting the agenda and and looking at this through UKS eyes, what does anyone think about some of the ideas as both an individual and perhaps what you would like to see UKS doing if and when we get a bit more active?
BTW, I think this is an excellent initiative by the Skeptics Society.
.
I think this document highlights just what a massive operation groups that want to influence the public perception need to run to be effective. While gifted amateurs abound in a field like this, providing administrative back up is necessary to ensure rapid response to media stories, ensuring that a sustained campaign can be waged in various media forms and with a rolling conference program, keeping up to date with political developments responding before laws are passed and keeping a stock of basic literature that can accessed as necessary.
On a more practical basis, one could use this forum to ensure that information on the above is available early and to encourage people to respond early and often. I thioght the idea of writing skeptical peices for womens magazines was particularly neat. Perhaps also religious magazines?
I agree that organisations like UKS need money, but I'm just not comfortable with it because I frequently mock people who give money to religious causes and new age weirdos.
If UKS is to become a more formal interest group, I think it is important to separate its potential lobbying role - in which it would presumably have a "point of view" to propagate - from the role of this forum for discussion which could (and should) include dissenting views and skeptical analysis of our own skepticism.
I would not necessarily want my membership of this forum to be taken as implying that I supported any stand taken by UKS on an issue. Nor would I necessarily want any dissent posted here by myself or others to be interpreted as weakening any lobbying position.
I look at it the opposite way - I like to make it clear that what people say on this forum does not mean that it is a UKS endorsed position.Originally Posted by Trinoc
What goes on the this UKS provided forum and what is UKS policy or protocol on matters are two different things.
.
There is no content based agenda (unlike religion).
It's the promotion of a method - not a theoretical position or theory.
Only if you argue against the scientific method, logic and reason - would there be a problem. But even then, there could be a philosophical discussion.
I don't think science needs to prove itself as a worthwhile system of thought - but i acknowledge others do and i am aware of it's limitations as a system(and much contextual philosophy).
Regarding the document, I think there is one huge, glaring omission in it. I would like to see skeptics learning and agreeing what skepticism actually is before they start attempting to promote it.
I know it's difficult to define skepticism as a thing as it's more of a methodology, a collection of methods used to achieve an outcome (e.g. forming justified conclusions on issues), and it might even be easier to agree on what skepticism is not rather than what it is. Skepticism is not defined by one's position on matters, for example. Not believing in acupuncture/ghosts/global warming/etc. does not mean you're a skeptic - non-believer or denier are more appropriate terms.
I do think this is an extremely important issue. If we're going to promote skepticism then we really ought to have a good idea of what it actually is. In the media 'skeptic' is almost always used as a euphemism for 'disbeliever' or 'denier' and if we're not switched on to this we can end up confirming the stereotypes rather than actually promoting skepticism!
I've used this example before, but a few years ago I was contacted by a radio producer who wanted to do a programme on the news that scientists said that we have the technology to pick up signals from alien civilizations and on the possibility of alien life existing. Then he wrote, "I have a couple of guests who DO believe there is life out there, but I would really love to invite a skeptic on the programme at 1.45pm to put your own views across."
Note the assumption that not believing means you're a skeptic!
I simply pointed out to him that I'd be hard pressed to find a skeptic who would deny that alien life exists or that it's possible. With hindsight, I probably should have gone on the programme and taken the opposite position to the one he was expecting!
That's a fairly clear example but others are more tricky. If you're a skeptic talking on homeopathy, for example, it's quite easy to be painted as the 'disbeliever' or 'denier' when your skepticism leads to the conclusion that it doesn't work.
You conclude it doesn't work because of your skepticism, you're not a skeptic because you conclude it doesn't work. There's quite a difference, and that's what needs to be made clear.
Anyway, my point being: we need to understand what modern, scientific (or rational) skepticism is in order to promote it successfully.
.
The media has the same pigeon-holing problem with paranormal researchers. They always assume that we will think ghosts are spirits and other such cliches.
I once went on a radio programme to talk about orbs and only realised later that I was the only one saying they were bits of dust rather than spirits! It didn't go down too well.
I missed this and I don't have time to read the Pdf tonight (bed is calling) - rats! It's got to be worthwhile talking about it though.
I agree re defining skeptic - after all I consider myself one but can't see myself living in a world denying woo (or anything else), I'd rather promote science and reason, not to mention improve my own!
It seems to have had precious little response anywhere. That's frustratingly normal with skeptics though.
If anyone ever wants to make a difference with skepticism this is the sort of thing we need to do.
As I've said before, I think we need to apply a business model approach to active skepticism if we're to stand any chance of achieving anything. If anyone has ever worked for themselves and prepared a business plan to work from they'll know the value of it.
If you have widgets to sell you need to understand your widgets, you need to know who might want them (target audience), you need to know how to reach those people (marketing), you need to create desire for them (solve their problems, provide what they want), deliver, and you need to monitor and keep assessing your performance and success.
That's just as applicable when your widget is skepticism!
As any businessperson will verify, being great at what you do or having a fantastic product is not enough. Customers will not simply come to you and buy your product or service because it's there - you have to find them and then sell it to them.
Instead of thinking about what we have to offer we should be thinking about what our target audience wants. Put yourself in your customers' shoes, identify and cater for their needs and desires - then you can sell!
That's how we need to start thinking.
.
Who is the target audience, do you think, John?
It depends on what you're selling! (Skepticism isn't just one thing so the target audience changes depending on what it is you want to achieve).
So, if you want to promote scientific methods in paranormal investigation, you target your efforts towards paranormal investigators and perhaps more widely to those who are interested in the area.
There's always the temptation to say the target audience is 'everyone' - but that's usually a mistake.
.
What about students as a start?
They're online and the web is (relatively) cheap. They have large social networks allowing a viral approach and hopefully, at least some get a head start on understanding emperical research methods?
Ok - that's based more on pragmatism than desire but a start's a start.
Ok, I've read a bit more of the Pdf - it makes alot of sense.
Personally, I'm still not sure that I could drag my ass off the sofa (Yeah right - like I get to spend time on the sofa!) for debunking. I appreciate that's what alot of Skepticness (ism) is about but if I weigh up effort to actual gain I reckon I can do better things with the same chunk of time. Hell would freeze over before I volunteer to go to a Psychic fair!
I'd be up for alot of the schools stuff, I'd enjoy giving that side time and effort.
On a slightly less egocentric front why not pick a small, acheivable target and work a business plan out on that rather than the whole thing? Sort of a practice run to see if/how such a diverse group can work together? It would mean only having to work out a skeptical point of view on one issue rather than the larger 'What is a Skeptic?' question. While the bigger question probably needs addressing it may take a century or two to gain agreement, christians still argue about what a christian is and muslims argue about what a muslim is - perhaps we can just side step the whole thing by only figuring out the bits we need to in order to be pragmatic.
Like producing a 'critical thinking pack'?
That's actually what I have in the pipeline.
I think that whatever we do in the future, it will have to be based on critical thinking and so that's the logical place to start.
We already have a fair amount of critical thinking stuff donated to us by Dr B, and I want to add to it all by doing some 'introduction to critical thinking' lessons for beginners as a lot of critical thinking is probably quite daunting to those who've never come across it before.
As for other projects, what we need is a team of people willing to donate a bit of time and effort for nothing in return other than the satisfaction of doing something positive (unfortunately skepticism is a voluntary pursuit).
At the moment I'm committed to other things so all I'm doing is trying to get the message over (by repitition) that we need to start taking a businesslike approach to skeptical activism and that we can only ever achieve it through teamwork.
Contributing to a 'blogsphere' of similar blogs, posting on skeptical forums, or meeting up in pubs is fine as community based activity; but it's not active skepticism - it's skepticism for skeptics!
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks