The Definition of Skepticism

[Chanakya]

Then just that bit. It's the "skepticism" bit that's so problematic., so get rid of it.

Or, "The International Skeptics Forum is an online community dedicated to fostering logical and critical thought."

Empirical as well. That's a separate ingredient, I think, and a necessary one.

 

[Hercules56]

From my own personal experience on this forum.
Examples:
I revealed that I'm a vegetarian. Result? Massive pile-on, got torn to pieces by very angry and vocal opponents of vegetarianism. Not one voice in favour. Conclusion? The forum as a whole is strongly opposed to vegetarianism.
I posted that I had been caught up in the closure of Heathrow Airport. Result? Massive pile-on, with people telling me I shouldn't be flying (from Saudi Arabia back to the UK, to see my friends and family), and that I didn't deserve any compensation from the airline for not providing a hotel room for the night (which they are legally obilged to do). Not one voice in favour. Conclusion? The forum as a whole is opposed to flying, or at least to me flying.
Last one: my suggestion that we include a definition of scepticism on the home page. Result? Massive pile-on, with my idea being depicted as the first step on the road to fascism, and people comprehensively rejecting the very idea of scepticism. Not one voice in favour of the idea. Conclusion? The forum as a whole is strongly opposed to defining, encouraging or utilising scepticism.
I assess the tone of the forum by the balance of posts for and against any particular comment, claim or idea. If all the comments are against, and none are for, then my conclusion is that the forum as a whole is against. I do not consider that to be an unreasonable position.

Dude, your strawmen are really pathetic. And your never-ending woe is me, is pathetic. This topic is not about you.

 

[ahhell]

OK, I get your point. It's kind of a less extreme variant on the idea that, for evil to truimph, it is necessary only for the good to do nothing. I was not aware that this was a widespread thing, either. It's certainly not something I do, at any rate. Is this really a thing?
That said, it does mean that I have, on several occasions here, been left feeling like a lone voice in the wilderness- isolated, embattled and attacked on all sides, and often (as per my examples) over what I consider to be fairly non-controversial issues. If the rest of the forum doesn't care, or doesn't care enough to speak up, then I think it fair to assume that this amounts to tacit support for the cynics, trolls and bullies that lurk among the threads.

To be fair, largely anecdotal on my part but I'm pretty sure it true that most folks lurk and don't get involved.

Having participated in various local government meetings (professionally, not as a politician), it's pretty true in real life too. My mother in law was local politician and her experience was similar to mine; she called them the usual suspects. The thing is, the people that really care are generally outliers and they really care a lot and express it.

ETA: My dad was also a real life troll, he'd go to the local town council meeting with a friend of his. they'd sit on opposite sides of the room and pepper the council with questions and comments. Get as much of their 5 minutes as the could.

 

[steenkh]

Dude, your strawmen are really pathetic. And your never-ending woe is me, is pathetic. This topic is not about you.

You can be trusted always to criticise him. Knock it off!

 

[Hercules56]

You can be trusted always to criticise him. Knock it off!

I will speak my mind, thank you.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You're exaggerating enormously.

Really?
theprestige said that what I wanted to do was crush dissent, silence any opposition to my own views, and dictate who would be allowed to post on this forum, and how. His more recent post asked me what my proposal was for "enforcement".
What does that sound like to you?

The reaction to your suggestion was absolutely not "entirely negative".

Kindly quote the posts prior to my #13 that were positive.

And this is unwarranted.

To your eyes, maybe. Not to mine.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If you remember my participation in the Hamas terror attack thread, I was also piled upon, among others by you, but I never thought that the forum as such was against my views, only the vocal participants in that thread. None of your examples are good examples of what the position of the forum as a whole is, and they are not even examples of all participants.

Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood the phrase 'piling on'. It refers to multiple participants, not just one. What we had was a long and sometimes heated discussion. That is not the same thing as piling on.
Again, all I have to go on is what forum members say. If the majority of members post for or against an idea, then that is what I base my assessment of the general, i.e. majority, view of the forum is.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You can be trusted always to criticise him. Knock it off!

There is a word for what he's doing, that I'm not allowed to use.

 

[8enotto]

The very idea that we each have a different level of skepticism on different subjects is giving the illusion that it's dead.

I couldn't care less about Kennedy orthe 9-11 twin towers stuff. It's done, logical solutions have been offered and we can't make them unhappen now.
Someone wants to keep pounding on that drum, I don't have to bother with them.

But applied critical thinking is something I have to teach my teenage son. Like how to have healthy doubts about the world around him and what he is told.
He is doing well already. He doesn't buy BS and he accepts what anyone can demonstrate clearly.



Skepticism isn't dead, here or anywhere else. It's just that if one chooses different issues to take on than you did, they may seem.lax and complacent.
Just understand your ( the collective your) interests vary from everyone else by a margin.

Nobody here buys into every bit of BS the world offers. A few are religious, one loves psychics, some don't sweat what cannot be undone.
It's all good, just go with the discussions that you can.

 

[theprestige]

Really?
theprestige said that what I wanted to do was crush dissent, silence any opposition to my own views, and dictate who would be allowed to post on this forum, and how. His more recent post asked me what my proposal was for "enforcement".
What does that sound like to you?


Kindly quote the posts prior to my #13 that were positive.


To your eyes, maybe. Not to mine.

Guilty as charged. I do think this is about you wanting to control the terms of debate by appeal to authority. It's not enough for you and your interlocutor to each make your best case, and let people decide for themselves who makes the most sense. You want your case to have privileged standing by virtue of conforming to an "official" definition.

That's how I read it, anyway. If you interpret that as me saying your proposal is fascist, then you put me in a bit of a pickle. Do I say I've accidentally guessed your shoe size? Or do I say, "who smelt it, dealt it"?

---

ETA: If anyone else agrees with Cosmic Yak, that I go too far in characterizing his proposal, let me know, and I'll consider it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

That's how I read it, anyway. If you interpret that as me saying your proposal is fascist, then you put me in a bit of a pickle. Do I say I've accidentally guessed your shoe size? Or do I say, "who smelt it, dealt it"?

---

ETA: If anyone else agrees with Cosmic Yak, that I go too far in characterizing his proposal, let me know, and I'll consider it.

For what it's worth, that is absolutely not what I had in mind, and I have said that to you several times.

 

[theprestige]

For what it's worth, that is absolutely not what I had in mind, and I have said that to you several times.

My bad. I botched the quotes. I've fixed it, and I hope it now makes more sense.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I think asking for a definition of "skepticism" is somewhat of a side quest, considering the name of the forum doesn't have the word, "skepticism" in it.

If anything, we should be asking for a definition of "international skeptic(s)".

Not that anybody seems to be interested in the topic anymore.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Guilty as charged. I do think this is about you wanting to control the terms of debate by appeal to authority. It's not enough for you and your interlocutor to each make your best case, and let people decide for themselves who makes the most sense. You want your case to have privileged standing by virtue of conforming to an "official" definition.

And once again, for the umpteenth time: THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.
All I want is for there to be, somewhere on this sceptics' site, a definition of what we mean here by scepticism. Nothing in that can be interpreted as controlling debate, or any of the other guff you spout here, by any reasonable person. I have no clue how you got this into your head. No clue at all.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think asking for a definition of "skepticism" is somewhat of a side quest, considering the name of the forum doesn't have the word, "skepticism" in it.

If anything, we should be asking for a definition of "international skeptic(s)".

Not that anybody seems to be interested in the topic anymore.

Surely a sceptic is someone who practises scepticism? To define one is to define the other.

 

[theprestige]

And once again, for the umpteenth time: THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.
All I want is for there to be, somewhere on this sceptics' site, a definition of what we mean here by scepticism. Nothing in that can be interpreted as controlling debate, or any of the other guff you spout here, by any reasonable person. I have no clue how you got this into your head. No clue at all.

As amusing as it would be, for me to agree that you have no clue, I don't.

In your own narrative, this whole thing stems from a conversation you had with someone who doesn't share your idea of skepticism.

What's the point of your prayer for an official forum definition, if not to throw it in the face of such interlocutors?

No, I think you're plenty clued-up on what you want out of this.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As amusing as it would be, for me to agree that you have no clue, I don't.

In your own narrative, this whole thing stems from a conversation you had with someone who doesn't share your idea of skepticism.

No. Not 'my idea of scepticsm'. The forum's idea of scepticism. As in 'Skeptics' Forum'.

What's the point of your prayer for an official forum definition, if not to throw it in the face of such interlocutors?

Not a prayer: please stop twisting my words and intentions. No need for that at all.
The point? I've stated this several times, on this thread. Why not read what I've said, rather that constructing strawmen?

No, I think you're plenty clued-up on what you want out of this.

Am I? How exciting. Care to spell out what it is that I'm thinking?

 

[theprestige]

No. Not 'my idea of scepticsm'. The forum's idea of scepticism. As in 'Skeptics' Forum'.

Yes. The forum's idea of skepticism, for you to weaponize.

Not a prayer: please stop twisting my words and intentions. No need for that at all.

Prayer is a legal term.

The point? I've stated this several times, on this thread. Why not read what I've said, rather that constructing strawmen?

I don't agree they're strawmen.

Am I? How exciting. Care to spell out what it is that I'm thinking?

I already have. Several times.

 

[Chanakya]

Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood the phrase 'piling on'. It refers to multiple participants, not just one. What we had was a long and sometimes heated discussion. That is not the same thing as piling on.
Again, all I have to go on is what forum members say. If the majority of members post for or against an idea, then that is what I base my assessment of the general, i.e. majority, view of the forum is.

Like I said, it kind of swings both ways. On one hand, it makes sense to see that just because no one has spoken out in favor, does not mean no one is in favor. @arthwollipot discussed some reasons why someone may not engage despite agreeing, I added some more. And right here we have evidence that that is the case, that some do agree, including me, even if we're not quite as zealous about it as you are, but we do agree, some of us.

On the other hand, like I said --- heh, like the God question --- how are you to know that, if we don't provide evidence? It would be delusional of you to assume silent agreement, if it turns out to be the case that people don't in fact agree.

Like I said, what this probably means is, it gives us a reason why it's good to make our opinion known, if only with a Like, particularly when the issue seems starkly divided (regardless of whether the discussion is amicable or heated).

That said --- and, heh, I don't mean to "pile on"! --- maybe you're taking this too personally, and giving the unpleasantness and the trolls more importance than they deserve? After all, as far as your vegetarianism, it isn't quite right that no one at all supported you, is it?

(Again, not attacking you, on the contrary. Just trying to gently show you that this place isn't quite as bleak and unsupportive as it seems to look like to you.)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes. The forum's idea of skepticism, for you to weaponize.

Weaponise? You see, that's the problem right there. It's like conspiratards bleating about Agenda 21. It's not what Agenda 21 actually says, it's the other stuff added on they are scared about- and that other stuff has come from feverish and paranoid fantasies. You are doing exactly the same thing here.
If you stop adding extra things onto what I've said, then you won't need to get so worked up. What I want is what I've said, and nothing more

Prayer is a legal term.

I don't think that's true, and in any case, we are not in a court of law.

I don't agree they're strawmen.

I already have. Several times.

Right. So despite my telling you over and over again that that is not what I want, and not what I'm thinking, you claim to know more than me about my own thoughts and wishes. Can you see where you might be going astray here?
You are wrong. Stop strawmanning me, and your delusional fears of a fascist takeover of this forum will vanish.