The Word "Skeptic" Must Go

[Mojo]

The Word “Atheist“ Must Go

Also...

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm not sure of the full history of the word, but I'm guessing that "skeptic" has a far older, and wider use history by crank contrarians than as the more modern brand of critical thinking that this forum hopes to embrace.

Yep.

On one side, you have climate skeptics, vaccine skeptics, and all kinds of other woo repackaged as skepticism.

On the other side, you have the "facts and logic" reactionaries that dress of up their neo-chauvinism as rational debate. It doesn't help that so many of the "new atheists" have outed themselves as fash-curious over the years.

I agree, the skeptics "brand" is trash these days.

And yep.


My guess has been that, going vaguely in correlation to Stephen Barrett's newsletter numbers, there are around 12,000 people who identify as a critical thinking "skeptic".

The numbers of non-self-identifying "conspiracy theorists" are much larger.

However, the numbers of well-educated, fairly normal people are even larger.

We all have smart friends on social media who love how we slag off "the idiots" to make ourselves look good.

Most of those, university-educated, don't call themselves skeptics.

Let's just get on with talking about how to make this world nice again.

Do we even need a label?

Religions and cults have labels. Hmmm.

"Oh no! The word 'skeptic' has been co-opted by deniers and conspiracist loons on social media. We will have to use something else!"

5 minutes later...

"Oh no! The phrase 'critical thinking' has been co-opted by deniers and conspiracist loons on social media. We will have to use something else!"

1 minute later...

"Oh no! The deniers and conspiracist loons on social media have co-opted every word in the English language. We will have to shut up!"

No, the dictionary was there for both to use. Have a look. It covers both.

In the Oxford, #1 is:

a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

 

[The Atheist]

The Word “Atheist“ Must Go

Also...

Funnily enough, there was a time that was almost true. Douglas Adams highlighted it in the '80s when he described himself as a "radical atheist" to separate himself from people who described themselves as atheist merely because they didn't go to church.

No, the dictionary was there for both to use. Have a look. It covers both.

In the Oxford, #1 is:

a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

Still nailing the subject.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

use the word 'debunker' in its place.

Global Warming Myth Debunked: Humans Have Minimal Impact on Atmosphere’s Carbon Dioxide and Climate

Debunking The Left’s Covid-19 Narrative

Mercury is Not Safe in Any Form: Debunking the Myths About Thimerosal “Safety”

You were saying?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No, the dictionary was there for both to use. Have a look. It covers both.

In the Oxford, #1 is:

a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

Vocabulary.com Dictionary: skeptic

A skeptic is a person who doesn't believe something is true unless they see evidence. As a skeptic, you refuse to believe your sister saw a ghost — after all, she can't prove it.

Skeptics are doubters — they need to see proof before they will believe. If you're a skeptic, you're probably dubious about things like astrology and magic. Some skeptics feel the same way about religion, preferring facts that can be scientifically and historically proven. Coming from the Greek word skeptikos, which means "thoughtful or inquiring," it's no surprise that a skeptic is someone who asks a lot of questions — and isn't easily convinced.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Vocabulary.com Dictionary: skeptic

I clicked your link and the definition in the definition section is:

Definitions of
skeptic
1
n someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs.

Which supports what you were trying to negate.

Also, "skeptic" [USA spelling] has two versions in your link, one being "skeptic" and the other is "sceptic", and note that the USA is not the only country in the world.

"Skeptic" is an American niche term with highly-charged negative connotations.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

note that the USA is not the only country in the world.

It's the only one that matters.

My link describes skepticism better than one line in a dictionary. And Wikipedia agrees:-

Skepticism (American English and Canadian English) or scepticism (British English and Australian English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma...

More informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, such as politics, religion, or pseudoscience.

"Skeptic" is an American niche term with highly-charged negative connotations.

Nonsense.

Over 50% of Americans say that religion plays a very important role in their lives. So belief in God is the accepted norm in this country. But does being skeptical towards this accepted belief have 'highly-charged negative connotations'? In some circles perhaps, but doubting the existence of God doesn't generally have the negative connotations it once did. Around 20% of the population (rising to ~30% in young adults) identify as non-religious, so clearly there are a lot of skeptics in the US. If we include those who are skeptical of this government's abilities the figure rises to well over 50%.

The truth is, most people are skeptical of one thing or another - often with good cause. Being skeptical of unevidenced claims is generally seen as a positive thing in the US. We pride ourselves as independent thinkers who don't believe everything the authorities tell us or accept what the majority think just because there are more of them.

Some people who call themselves 'skeptics' are actually deniers or conspiracist loons, but the majority are true skeptics who just want to see the evidence before they accept what they are told. To 'take back' the word we merely need to use it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

use the word 'debunker' in its place.

Why not use the word "strawberry" in its place? That doesn't mean the same thing either.

Dave

 

[Sherkeu]

Maybe we can borrow from Sagan and be ....
Baloney Detectors

 

[Orphia Nay]

It's the only one that matters.

My link describes skepticism better than one line in a dictionary. And Wikipedia agrees:-



Nonsense.

Over 50% of Americans say that religion plays a very important role in their lives. So belief in God is the accepted norm in this country. But does being skeptical towards this accepted belief have 'highly-charged negative connotations'? In some circles perhaps, but doubting the existence of God doesn't generally have the negative connotations it once did. Around 20% of the population (rising to ~30% in young adults) identify as non-religious, so clearly there are a lot of skeptics in the US. If we include those who are skeptical of this government's abilities the figure rises to well over 50%.

The truth is, most people are skeptical of one thing or another - often with good cause. Being skeptical of unevidenced claims is generally seen as a positive thing in the US. We pride ourselves as independent thinkers who don't believe everything the authorities tell us or accept what the majority think just because there are more of them.

Some people who call themselves 'skeptics' are actually deniers or conspiracist loons, but the majority are true skeptics who just want to see the evidence before they accept what they are told. To 'take back' the word we merely need to use it.

I think I'm done with your and my conversation because you've posted about things that have already been shown in this thread as unhelpful to "true skepticism" by calling ourselves skeptics.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Look, it's OK to admit it's awkward if calling yourself a skeptic.

I'd guess we've all been there.

Why persist in continuing?

 

[Darat]

People were "wrestling" with this when the forum first started.

 

[The Atheist]

People were "wrestling" with this when the forum first started.

Pretty sure I started a similar thread over a decade ago. 9/11 skeptics were in vogue then, but climate & vaccines are a lot more important than idiot CTs about there being no planes.

 

[Lplus]

Look, it's OK to admit it's awkward if calling yourself a skeptic.

I'd guess we've all been there.

Why persist in continuing?

Continuing what? Calling yourself a Skeptic?

Indeed, why call yourself anything - scepticism is a state of mind, not a belief.

 

[carlitos]

May have been, but if so I'm sure Randi endorsed it. It was pretty dim.

ETA: Brights Movement at RationalWiki.

I was cleaning out old Christmas stuff and found my Randi "may your holiday season be bright" ornament last year. Dim indeed.

 

[Sherkeu]

I was cleaning out old Christmas stuff and found my Randi "may your holiday season be bright" ornament last year. Dim indeed.

I never liked the "Brights" thing. Seemed so pompous. I'm glad it did not stick.

Yesterday, my kid wore my old "Bacon and Doughnuts" t-shirt from TAM in Vegas. 2013 I think. Neuroscience was the topic of the event.
Penn Jillette hosted the party and hired some topless gogo dancers for it to entertain with his rock band.
It was a fun party but can you imagine the outrage it would bring today?

 

[lomiller]

Are you skeptical of aliens, ESP, homeopathy, trickle-down economics? What about religion? There are a lot of commonly held beliefs to be skeptical of.

There's a distinct difference between skepticism and denial. Skeptics don't believe things without sufficient evidence. Deniers reject all evidence. But believers don't need any evidence. Only skeptics require facts and logic, rather than uncritically believing or reflexively denying what they are told.

That word “sufficient” is problematic because it’s entirely subjective. Human nature is that we hold a different standard for things we already believe. In practice this means a skeptic actually accepting the evidence almost never happens. This means that the real distinction comes down to whether the original implicit rejection of the claim/position was correct in the first place, which generally comes down to what information they used to form that initial opinion.

The underlying problem with skepticism is that it demands someone else do all the work and present all the evidence. This echoes how a lot of woo works because it makes for an easy way out of providing any evidence for ones own position. Even when used on the correct side of al argument it still tends to be used the very same way for the very same reason. Eg when a skeptic asks for evidence for the existence of ghosts they are not taking a neutral stance and giving the people a chance to support their claim. The skeptic is invariably starting from the (correct) position that ghosts do not exist, but doesn’t want to have to prove their own position is correct.


From a critical thinking perspective what we should be doing is weighing the evidence for BOTH sides and using that to reach a conclusion as to how likely each possibility is. You can still get to valid conclusions (eg “ghosts likely do not exist”) but it takes work and positive arguments/evidence of your own and sounds like you are hedging while saying “you haven’t proved to my satisfaction that ghosts exist, therefor they are not real” is easy and sounds authoritative.

 

[lomiller]

We've been here before with 'science is just another religion' and claiming rational thinking could apply to anything a person claimed it applied to.

Just politely explain why said word either doesn't apply of has more than one meaning.

I recall a few angry replies when I've used the 'rational thinking' terminology. I don't care. They were wrong.

It doesn't matter which word you use, the irrational, anti-science folks will try to usurp the terminology because they have no other argument.

Science is not just another religion, but can be indistinguishable in the way it’s applied.

It’s entirely possible (and actually very common) to view a science textbook in exactly the same way a religious person views the Bible.
Both think “their” book is a source of truth and fact. The former, is of course far more likely to be right about the age of the earth, but the thought process that got them there may be just as muddled as young earth creationist who believes the earth is 6000 years old because of what’s in the bible.

At a minimum, you need to understand why the textbook is a better source of information and how to distinguish which sources of information are to be believed. While fundamental, this is actually far more difficult than most people imagine.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That word “sufficient” is problematic because it’s entirely subjective.

I disagree. Though the amount required to satisfy an individual person obviously varies, we can still say that it is 'sufficient' if it is enough to satisfy the needs of a reasonable person. This applies to many things that are subjective, and is generally implicit in the word 'sufficient'.

When all reasonable evidence is rejected outright we can say that the person is being unreasonable, and their 'skepticism' is actually denial. Similarly, someone who believes any evidence no matter how weak or nonsensical is not a skeptic either.

Human nature is that we hold a different standard for things we already believe. In practice this means a skeptic actually accepting the evidence almost never happens. This means that the real distinction comes down to whether the original implicit rejection of the claim/position was correct in the first place

A true skeptic neither believes nor denies evidence, but evaluates it provisionally and assigns a level of confidence in it. Once you become convinced of something and your mind cannot be changed, you are no longer a skeptic. And that is problematic.

The underlying problem with skepticism is that it demands someone else do all the work and present all the evidence.

No, it doesn't. Real skeptics do their own research, and only demand that claims made by others be supported by it. If someone constantly demands more when sufficient evidence has already been provided then they are not a skeptic, they are a denier.

Eg when a skeptic asks for evidence for the existence of ghosts they are not taking a neutral stance and giving the people a chance to support their claim. The skeptic is invariably starting from the (correct) position that ghosts do not exist, but doesn’t want to have to prove their own position is correct.

If you are convinced that ghosts don't exist then you are not a skeptic. A skeptic is skeptical of the existence of ghosts, but willing to consider new evidence.

You talk about sufficient being 'entirely subjective' and therefore 'problematic'. But ignoring the subjective nature of evidence and belief is more problematic. Being skeptical is a good thing, because it means you are keeping your mind open to new information and better evaluation of it. Skepticism is not the same as belief or denial. It is a scale which slides towards one or the other but never quite gets there. It is a valuable skill to have because without it you may become dogmatic and unable to discard false beliefs.

When a skeptic asks for evidence you should not take it as an imposition, but an opportunity to expand your knowledge and review your beliefs, as well as helping others to do so. Sadly, many here are unwilling to do so - which is their loss. All of us can learn from such debates, even if the questioner shows gross ignorance and lack of critical thought. And it can be a valuable experience even if they turn out to be intractable deniers or believers. They are just providing the seed for discussion, not the whole audience.

This website is aptly named. By attracting skeptics of all types it challenges our minds, unlike like other places which are mere echo chambers of belief or denial. We should not give up the word 'skeptic' just because a few try to make it into something else. The best way to do that is use it as intended.

 

[Venom]

Thread reminded me of this TEDx talk.