• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do we dare to call ourselves Skeptics?

Orion

New Blood
O
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
12
After looking at an article titled “What is Scepticism” by Brian Dunning, I asked myself “do we all dare to call ourselves Skeptics?”

Abstracts from his article…
Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.
Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world.
Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and popular misinformation toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.
Skepticism is an essential and meaningful component of the search for truth.

Most importantly he states: “The scientific method is central to skepticism” and a skeptic “maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements”

In light of the above I have a serious concern about the way people in the Forum respond to seemingly well thought through information contained in posts. Responses such as these are worth nothing… nothing and do not in my opinion contribute anything to a search for truth… or whatever.
“Really?”
“OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!”
“Uhguuu!”

As light of the above I suggest that people responding to posts should:
Make an effort to understand the point of view expressed in the post.
Apply critical thinking in evaluating the content of the post.
Define your own point of view and present it in a logical way.

I feel we should be very skeptic about our own inputs to the Forum.
 
Imo, some people take their role as a sceptic, and most of the time, themselves, far too seriously.

I don't generally feel the need to conduct an experiment before saying such things as:

“Really?”
“OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!”
“Uhguuu!”

I don't ever meet people in a bar and introduce myself as a sceptic, but I'm sure there are lots of people who probably bloody do.

I'm just a guy who doesn't believe in some silly stuff out there. To each, his own...
 
Skepticism is one, one of many, intellectual and argumentative standards that are a good part of your mental toolkit if you want to... trim as much fat off your opinions as possible. It's a good and noble and useful tool and a key factor in an overall ability to not be swayed by B.S.

Wearing it like a badge can be a sign of a lot of things, statistically none of which are good.

That being said the whole "Skeptical of being skeptical" line is meaningless doublespeak nonsense and the trend of skepticism being yet another trait that doesn't exist in any real honest sense but only as backhanded passive aggressive insult to throw against your opponent when you feel they aren't living up to (The whole "Oh I'm sorry I thought you were a skeptic" style malarkey) is juvenile.
 
Really?
People typing on a forum are calling themselves skeptics?
 
Unless given evidence otherwise, I assume every skeptic is first a human being, not a "critically thought out reply" bot. Expecting a human being to NOT reply glibly, sarcastically or cheekily to certain posts is like expecting a cow not to moo when you yank her udder.

Want a meaningful reply from a skeptic? Don't yank her udder.
 
Hi Orion, welcome to the forum.

Re:
Most importantly he states: “The scientific method is central to skepticism” and a skeptic “maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements”
Click to expand...
Yes to the first part. Doubt about "plans"? What does that mean? Doubt about statements is really just part of the first part.

But doubt about values? Why? Understand them, yes. Understand how they affect our view of the evidence (aka confirmation bias), of course. But there is no proper skeptical position on one's values. Values evolved like intelligence did and they are an integral part of our brain function. The result of nature/nurture is that we don't all hold the same values. The best we can do scientifically is understand that.

As for your admonition:
Make an effort to understand the point of view expressed in the post.
Apply critical thinking in evaluating the content of the post.
Define your own point of view and present it in a logical way.

I feel we should be very skeptic about our own inputs to the Forum.
Click to expand...
It's Phil Plait's POV, "Don't be a dick." Some of us try harder than others, just as some are critical thinkers and some are not despite believing they are.

The Cosmos Forum is a good place for discussions that don't involve the nonsensical bickering we keep the mods busy with here. Was there something in particular that led to this thread?

Do keep in mind you won't see the same kind of skepticism applied in the politics forums especially given the current divide growing between nationalism and globalism, between right and left, in the US and the EU.
 
JoeBentley said:
Skepticism is one, one of many, intellectual and argumentative standards that are a good part of your mental toolkit if you want to... trim as much fat off your opinions as possible. It's a good and noble and useful tool and a key factor in an overall ability to not be swayed by B.S.

Wearing it like a badge can be a sign of a lot of things, statistically none of which are good.

That being said the whole "Skeptical of being skeptical" line is meaningless doublespeak nonsense and the trend of skepticism being yet another trait that doesn't exist in any real honest sense but only as backhanded passive aggressive insult to throw against your opponent when you feel they aren't living up to (The whole "Oh I'm sorry I thought you were a skeptic" style malarkey) is juvenile.
Click to expand...

Almost without fail, the person using that line (or variants) is someone who is defining skepticism by some conclusion they're clinging to, rather than defining the conclusion by skepticism.
 
gerdbonk said:
Unless given evidence otherwise, I assume every skeptic is first a human being, not a "critically thought out reply" bot. Expecting a human being to NOT reply glibly, sarcastically or cheekily to certain posts is like expecting a cow not to moo when you yank her udder.
Want a meaningful reply from a skeptic? Don't yank her udder.
Click to expand...

Exactly- not every post requires rigidly-applied critical thinking. I can think of a few in some of the "religion," "paranormal," and CT sections here for which a good, hearty "lolwut?" is really the best critical response; skepticism's not an engine that needs running all the time to run smoothly when needed.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No link, and Google says 'No results found for “What is Scepticism” by Brian Dunning.'

Does the article actually exist? I'm skeptical...
Click to expand...
Macgyver1968 said:
Ha! My google-fu is better that yours! :)

https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php
Click to expand...


Perhaps Dunning was quoting the dictionary.

Searching for “maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements” with quotes gets a 2009 blog saying the quote is a dictionary entry.

Brian Dunning has an interesting Google result:

Brian Dunning, Host of Skeptoid Podcast, Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison for Scamming eBay

I'm not a podcast listener but I've heard of Skeptoid.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Exactly- not every post requires rigidly-applied critical thinking. I can think of a few in some of the "religion," "paranormal," and CT sections here for which a good, hearty "lolwut?" is really the best critical response; skepticism's not an engine that needs running all the time to run smoothly when needed.
Click to expand...



Yeah, this.

When you've seen the same daft claims for the 100th or 1000th time, you start to figure maybe it isn't worth running over all the details again. At some point, you have to figure, "The answer is out there, and if this person really wanted to know it, they'd have found it already."
 
Orion said:
After looking at an article titled “What is Scepticism” by Brian Dunning, I asked myself “do we all dare to call ourselves Skeptics?”

Abstracts from his article…
Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.
Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world.
Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and popular misinformation toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.
Skepticism is an essential and meaningful component of the search for truth.

Most importantly he states: “The scientific method is central to skepticism” and a skeptic “maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements”

In light of the above I have a serious concern about the way people in the Forum respond to seemingly well thought through information contained in posts. Responses such as these are worth nothing… nothing and do not in my opinion contribute anything to a search for truth… or whatever.
“Really?”
“OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!”
“Uhguuu!”

As light of the above I suggest that people responding to posts should:
Make an effort to understand the point of view expressed in the post.
Apply critical thinking in evaluating the content of the post.
Define your own point of view and present it in a logical way.

I feel we should be very skeptic about our own inputs to the Forum.
Click to expand...

No one person speaks for a group unless elected to do so. I call myself skeptic, and am satisfied that I adhere to the above-summarized tenets of skepticism. Occasionally I descend into mockery or emotional responses for the primary reason that I am human and therefore fallible.

All this "we" nonsense is just that: nonsense. Call yourself what you like. Observe what rules and live by whatever code you deem appropriate. If an individual calls him/herself a skeptic, but seems to contradict the tenets of skepticism, call him or her out on it.

"the way people in the Forum respond to seemingly well thought through information contained in posts" varies greatly. Painting the entire forum with such a broad brush is not going to achieve much.
 
Orion said:
... I feel we should be very skeptic about our own inputs to the Forum.
Click to expand...

Too much work. I mean, once we take that route, one must be skeptical of one's potentially deeply biased unconscious motives at all times, which is not always easy, as well as sugar levels, traces of unrelated emotional responses surfacing asynchronously with matters at hand and coloring them, tricks the mind plays, and time of day. You'd spend an hour on each sentence.

And, it's worse. You know how dumb you were five years ago, but now know better? Your future self is laughing.
 
Orion said:
After looking at an article titled “What is Scepticism” by Brian Dunning, I asked myself “do we all dare to call ourselves Skeptics?”

Abstracts from his article…
Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.
Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world.
Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and popular misinformation toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.
Skepticism is an essential and meaningful component of the search for truth.

Most importantly he states: “The scientific method is central to skepticism” and a skeptic “maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements”

In light of the above I have a serious concern about the way people in the Forum respond to seemingly well thought through information contained in posts. Responses such as these are worth nothing… nothing and do not in my opinion contribute anything to a search for truth… or whatever.
“Really?”
“OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!”
“Uhguuu!”

As light of the above I suggest that people responding to posts should:
Make an effort to understand the point of view expressed in the post.
Apply critical thinking in evaluating the content of the post.
Define your own point of view and present it in a logical way.

I feel we should be very skeptic about our own inputs to the Forum.
Click to expand...

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism before any conclusion is arrived at.

Neo-skeptic(Debunker) – one who holds an a priori belief that the phenomena does not exist or can't be true, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.

Neo-sceptics cloak denialism in the language of rational skepticism and critical thinking and start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.
 
jakesteele said:
Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism before any conclusion is arrived at.

Neo-skeptic(Debunker) – one who holds an a priori belief that the phenomena does not exist or can't be true, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.

Neo-sceptics cloak denialism in the language of rational skepticism and critical thinking and start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.
Click to expand...
The temptation is strong here just to say "lolwut?"; but I'll resist it (for the time being), and instead say...

There's another, equally wrong, alternative to "undecided as to what is true" besides just "holds an a priori belief that the phenomenon does not exist or can't be true"; can you guess what it is?

Skepticism is a process of demanding then assessing evidence in order to reach a conclusion- there's nothing about the process that requires it to continue endlessly in dithering uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom