? I didn't understand this part. I was talking about what skeptics disagree about, not what scientists disagree about. Just because scientists agree on what science is does not mean skeptics accept it. Thus there is disagreement.
And what do skeptics disagree about that scientists and philosophers of science don't? Philosophy of science is not a field without controversy! But thos is not necessarily the fatal problem you want it to be. A comment from a prominent member of the
Swedish Skeptics could be of relevance here:
Sven Ove Hansson said:
The way I see it, VoF [Swedish Skeptics] and the general skeptical movement is not characterised by any particular view of science. … Just like members of Amnesty International can have different ideas about the limits of free speech, there is room in VoF for divergent opinions in questions about science and the philosophy of science. (Critics have sometimes claimed that the organisation is full of positivists. I have never come across one of those, but VoF does have supporters and opponents of Karl Poppers falsificationist theory of science among its members.)
In fact, I would say that skeptics are very confused about how to evaluate scientific arguments. It is one of the maybe five major rifts within skepticism, and it's very important considering our alleged mandate to be science advocates.
Would you please substantiate this claim? And what are the "maybe five major rifts"?
Skeptics are not scientists, and they are not very clear on what science is, how it works, and - most importantly - how nonscientists can identify good versus bad science.
Some skeptics are. But even so, among the goals of the skeptical movement is to educate the public (including skeptics themselves) about how to differentiate science and pseudoscience?
Again: a very high-profile problem.
Do you think skeptics have failed on this? Not referring to individual skeptics here, but if the skeptical movement or big skeptical groups have made systematic errors.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. I think the disagreements on scope are a major reason there are different groups. There used be just one. They others 'split off' because of scope and strategy disagreements, or disagreements about what, exactly, critical thinking is, how to apply it &c.
This is an unwarranted assumption from you.
In the US, there are three big skeptical organizations (CSI, JREF, Skeptics Society). CSI (then named CSICOP) was the original one. James Randi used to be part of it but eventually left to form his own group.
If I'm not mistaken, Randi left because he was dissatisfied with the leadership of Paul Kurtz. That Paul Kurtz was an autocratic leader is pretty well-known, and has even been discussed on this forum. I'm not sure about Shermer, though Skeptics Society was formed much later than CSICOP.
I don't see any differences in scope in these organizations, but a slight difference in focus (if there is a scope difference, then please point it out). And these organizations are on friendly terms, frequently colaborate and have each other as speakers on their events and conferences. These organizations are also based in different regions (CSI: New York, JREF: Florida, Skeptics Society: California) which makes sense in a big country like the US.
Yeeeesss... I'm not sure why you are trying to lecture me on Loxton. He and I have collaborated, as I explained. Basically, he and I are aligned that skepticism has experienced irreversible mission creep, and that we do not agree on a single process for evaluating claims.
I don't see this mission creep actually. JREF, Skeptics Society, CSI, SGU are doing what they have always been doing, and have been very resistent to hijack them for other purposes. If you disagree, then please outline how their missions have changed.
"A single process" is true, but trivial. There is no single scientific method either. It's well-established that scientific skepticism works within the empirical realm. If you think this is controversial, then please show me exactly who disagrees with this.
There's a distinction between his descriptive passages (what skepticism is, has been) versus his proscriptive passages (what skepticism should be).
I'm not so sure. He is basically trying to explain what the skeptical project is about. His "proscriptive passages" would be that skeptical groups should no change their focus, at least not while referring to themselves as skeptics.
He's said it many times, in many contexts. Mostly as a host for Point of Inquiry, sometimes on his blogs, also in articles in Skeptical Inquirer. And he's not alone, of course. Just one example.
Ok, I have a rather clear memory that he has said that JREF is not a gay rights organization.
Generally, CFI is more interested in social justice issues, as it was their original mandate to engage the public. Shermer split off CSICOP because they were taking the wrong side of the social issues, and he wants to engage the public to persuade them to do different things.
CFI is an umbrella organization for CSI and the Council for Secular Humanism. It is the latter that is engaged in social issues.
Given that these organizations cooperate you'll have to substantiate your claim.
Both organizations are convinced that they have acheived their facts through the One True Skeptical Method. Both think the other is blinded by bias.
And you know this how?
It was largely due to this type of problem that Loxton believes skepticism should pull back from science advocacy - we say we are very interested in it, but seem to disagree on what it is. Until we get our house in order, we should take it down a notch. I agree.
This is directly contradicted by what he wrote in his essay
Where Do We Go From Here?:
Daniel Loxton said:
In my view, there are two proper areas of focus for skeptics. One is the promotion of science literacy and critical thinking
You will also have to substantiate your claim that he thinks that CSI and Skeptics Society each think they have found the "One True Skeptical Method", and therefore skeptics should pull back from science advocacy.
Not sure how to explain that better... I was saying that Loxton was concerned that the rebranding of skepticism to be applied critical thinking was a step in the wrong direction.It changed from a community focussed on fringe claims of the paranormal to a community that was convinced they think better than everybody else on every concievable topic. The word he used was 'everythingology' - I was more critical, and said that Skepticism had become 'MENSA, but without the entrance exam.'
Please substantiate where skeptics think they think better than everyone else on every topic. I have not encountered it. And pseudoscience and the paranormal are still core skeptical topics.
What he meant by everythingology was clearly in the context of arguing that skeptics should weigth in on legitimate controversies within scientific fields. Skeptics who are not scientists are not able to resolve such disputes. I agree.
I have no idea why you think this. Myers and FtB have fringe views, but all the majors advocate political interaction. The main hotbutton disagreements within organized skepticism in the last 20 years have probably been climate change and healthfraud.
You will have to substantiate this. Alternative medicine has been a core topic for skepticism since the beginning. Loxton even says as much in the essay on the history of skepticism, countering those who think it is a new skeptical topic.
Just as a specific example: are you unaware that CFI has a federal lobbyist in Washington? That political advocacy is an important part of their mandate? CFI is also deliberately allied (shared resources) with CSH, whose mandate is to spread the word about secular ethics. Most recently, they have created a joint charity called the Skeptics and Humanist Aid and Relief Effort.
CFI is not a skeptical organization per se, bbut (again) an umbrella organization for CSI and CSH, the latter which is a secular humanist organization.
And they're not alone. JREF has been hosting blood donor clinics for several TAMs running. These organizations do not hesitate to engage the community when they think it will create benefit.
And this is a problem how?
Novella has a lot of good posts, and I personally agree with most of his views. I've caught him making gaffes with his critical thinking, but that's pretty minor. Recall, though, that these are his opinions about skepticism, and often an opinion about what he would like skepticism to be (as opposed to a description of what it is). Don't confuse a wish list with a report.
Novella has been doing skepticism for decades, and what he writes about skepticism and its scope doesn't seem to ruffle any feather except for with PZ Myers.
Worth noting: many skeptics think he is dead wrong about a lot of things. A recent poll at my Skeptics in the Pub is about 50:50... about half the skeptics here think he's an idiot. Mostly, his critics think he 'injects too much politics' into his skeptical discussions, and the 2nd most common complaint I hear is that he asks people to defer to expertise.
What are those "a lot of things"? And he doesn't seem to inject much political opinion at all. He hasn't to my knowledge even said where his political sympathies lie (which Loxton actually has, mind you). And to deferring to expertise on topics on which you are not an expert (which Loxton wrote about also) is sensible.
Except the question was what do people mean when they say skeptics are x.
That they say different things in different context is the answer.
Here I assume we are talking about scientific skepticism rather than philosophical skepticism or moral skepticism. This is at least what the skeptical organizations do.
So, this is part of the problem, right? Critical thinking isn't "logical fallacies and biases" - it's thinking critically, balancing arguments, evaluating evidence for credibility, giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt, &c.
I have taken a critical thinking course at university, and it was very much evaluating arguments (are the premises justified, do they lead to the conclusion?). Critical thinking was called informal logic a few decades ago, and that's exactly what it is.
The classic example of critical thinking is a highschool English essay assignment. Another example is tuning a bicycle.
These are not exercises in critical thinking.
What I did for the surveys (I taught critical thinking and philosophy of science for several years) was leverage Skeptics in the Pub and SkeptiCamp attendees, asking them to fill out standard critical thinking inventories that I used to evaluate my classes. Then I compared the results against Canadian and US national averages. I also did some breakdowns for income, education, and number of years involved with organized skepticism and/or organized atheism, and lastly, whether they've ever taken a philosophy course in critical thinking. Only the last category was positively correlated with a score higher than average.
So your evaluation of the global skeptical movement is based on a few instances in British Columbia? And you think
skeptics are the ones who suck at critical thinking?
Skeptics run into trouble because they mostly learn from informal sources, in an ad hoc manner, and tend not to practise the concepts so do not incorporate the information. They learn about critical thinking but this is not learning how to think critically. Unfortunately, many of the critical thinking resources popular with skeptics are opinions of the posters, rather than actually good practice, which is sort of like the ironic Fox News problem... the degree of misinformation means that a person with less exposure may actually be more knowledgeable.
And you know this how? Yet another unsubstantiated claim from you.
Dale Beyerstein (Barry's brother - he's a philosophy instructor at Langara U in Vancouver) and I developed an online course to help people practice critical thinking and evaluation of scientific claims skills. It has since come down, as we discontinued the service for personal reasons.
But this is part of the problem as well: skeptics do not necessarily have anything more than an 'interest' in critical thinking. They may have mislearned the names of a few fallacies, yet be unable to explain them well. They come to meetings because they are relieved to find that there's another group of people out there who think religion, bigfoot, UFOs, pyramid power, &c are for sheeple.
Again, please substantiate!
