The Definition of Skepticism

I have a small clue how you feel,Yak. In my case, I keep thinking I must be on nearly everyone’s ignore list, instead of anyone piling on. Also, to me, you are not the one trying to dictate how others post.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Again, all I have to go on is what forum members say.
Click to expand...
Yes and no, all you have to go on is what some forum members say.
Cosmic Yak said:
If the majority of members, i.e. members who are active in any given thread because, as we all (?) know, it is highly unlikely that a majority of members are active in any one thread, if the majority of those 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.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
Can you see what's wrong with your line of reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
There were two issues with what happened then. The first was that I was labelled a hypocrite for being vegetarian, and the whole concept was rejected as such by those who commented.
The second was that I was criticised for being a lecturing vegetarian, when I had been at pains to say the exact opposite. No matter how much I tried to counter this strawman, the forum members involved simply repeated their lies about me.
So, I came away from that episode with the conclusions that this forum was highly critical of the idea of being vegetarian, and some members saw it as an opportunity for repeated dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Most people, not just in the 'real world' but here as well, tend to form their ideas of what a person says on what they expect them to be rather than on what they actually are, i.e. 'He's a vegetarian, and I know all about vegetarians, so this is a wonderful opportunity for me to present what I think vegetarians are like instead of making an attempt to grasp what this particular vegetarian is actually saying.'
So I think that it's highly likely that there would have been an abundance of strawmen and a rejection of "the whole concept" in the thread.
Link?

Cosmic Yak said:
No-one ever said how I was supposed to get from Saudi to the UK, if not by flying.
I also use an e-scooter to get to and from work, or taxis when it's too hot for that, so my overall carbon footprint is quite low. (Not eating meat also helps that.) That didn't seem to count for those laying into me.
As for siding with the airline, I don't know either why those posters did that. You can have a look in that thread and see if you can figure it out, if you're interested.
Click to expand...

This is a good exemple of why individual attempts to solve the climate crisis by means of individual choices as consumers don't work: We depend on and are more or less stuck with the existing infrastructure, which was made to serve business interests and not consumers, i.e. people who don't own those businesses. In the climate threads, I have mentioned (ad nauseam) how the generation of power, the transportation infrastructure and a couple of other things need to be changed in order to change consumer patterns instead of trying to adapt consumer patterns to infrastructure that is meant to make consumption result in CO2 emission. People start riding bicycles when it becomes appealing to ride bicycles not when it's a risky venture for monomaniacs.

(The idea of riding bikes in infrastructure built for cars appeals mainly to people whose main interest in the climate discussion is to tout the sacrifices they make for it, i.e. the virtue signalers. Instead of blaming (and changing!) that infrastructure, they blame consumers for choices that are actually 'thrust upon' them: 'But look at me! If I can do it, so can you!')

The trip from Saudi Arabia to the UK using an e-scooter isn't practically possible, obviously. A climate-friendly means of transportation would be (so far non-existent) high-speed rail.
Link?

Cosmic Yak said:
Agreed, but that wasn't why I thought we should have the term defined. It was more about attracting new members, and letting people know what we're about here.
Or supposed to be about, at least.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't hurt to make both skeptics, potential skeptics and woo woos know what to expect. I sometimes pity apparently well-intended newbies when they are met with arguments that imply or make it explicit that they can't be serious or have good intentions when they may simply be unfamiliar with the way skepticism here works.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Yes and no. I'm expected to assume that those not posting are not being negative, but just don't give a ◊◊◊◊. I don't think that makes much difference: the effect is still the same.
Click to expand...

Or expect the majority of people not posting in it to be blissfully unaware of the existence of this particular thread. Nobody is interested in all themes, and it's possible, as some people have suggested, that ideas tend to attract responses from people who disagree with those ideas.
(A thread generating "Yes, you are absolutely right!" responses will be extremely boring and very short!)

I don't expect you "to assume that those not posting are not being negative, but just don't give a ◊◊◊◊." I expect you to understand that you have no idea why people don't post. I am trying to change your interpretation of what you see. I don't think your interpretation is correct.
 
dann said:
It wouldn't hurt to make both skeptics, potential skeptics and woo woos know what to expect. I sometimes pity apparently well-intended newbies when they are met with arguments that imply or make it explicit that they can't be serious or have good intentions when they may simply be unfamiliar with the way skepticism here works.
Click to expand...
(y)
 
Cosmic Yak said:
You could have the decency to admit you were wrong. It wouldn't hurt, you know.
Click to expand...
He wasn't wrong, though. I said what I said. The fascism thing was your invention. I don't think your approach is particularly fascistic. But if you see it that way, I won't try to dissuade you.

I just think you want more control over the terms of debate than you're properly entitled to, and that you believe an official forum definition will give you some of that additional control.

I think that sounds like garden variety ego. If you think it sounds like fascism, that's on you.
 
theprestige said:
He wasn't wrong, though. I said what I said. The fascism thing was your invention. I don't think your approach is particularly fascistic. But if you see it that way, I won't try to dissuade you.

I just think you want more control over the terms of debate than you're properly entitled to, and that you believe an official forum definition will give you some of that additional control.

I think that sounds like garden variety ego. If you think it sounds like fascism, that's on you.
Click to expand...
That's your problem, right there. Nothing I have said indicates that. Moreover, I have denied that several times, yet you continue to insist that it's true. You are simply making stuff up, attributing it to me, and then criticising me for it. If you stop that, the problem will disappear.
 
dann said:
...
Click to expand...


dann said:
People start riding bicycles when it becomes appealing to ride bicycles not when it's a risky venture for monomaniacs.

(The idea of riding bikes in infrastructure built for cars appeals mainly to people whose main interest in the climate discussion is to tout the sacrifices they make for it, i.e. the virtue signalers. Instead of blaming (and changing!) that infrastructure, they blame consumers for choices that are actually 'thrust upon' them: 'But look at me! If I can do it, so can you!')
Click to expand...

Some of us also become active members of bicycle advocacy groups (Pedal Power ACT, Bicycle Institute SA, Bicycle SA) and lobby for, build and achieve cycling infrastructure. (Off road cycling paths, on grade bicycle lanes, Mountain bike trails, bicycles on trains, end of trip facilities).

So, I'll put this one in the same bin as the COLD SHOWER ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

And yes, I rode to work for approximately 20 years, and during the time I was active in those organisations, we achieved a lot.

For the South Australians here, have you seen the government provided cycle path maps?

That was primarily the result of one Bicycle Institute member's efforts to map safe routes for cyclists (no, not me).
 
Cosmic Yak said:
That's your problem, right there.
Click to expand...
My problem is that I think? That's a new one.

Cosmic Yak said:
Nothing I have said indicates that.
Click to expand...
That's not the way I see it.

Cosmic Yak said:
Moreover, I have denied that several times, yet you continue to insist that it's true.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fairy. I'm not constrained to believe you if you say the same thing three times.

We have a trust issue, you and I. This can't be resolved by you constantly insisting I should trust you.

Cosmic Yak said:
You are simply making stuff up, attributing it to me, and then criticising me for it. If you stop that, the problem will disappear.
Click to expand...
Your problem is not of my making.
 
theprestige said:
My problem is that I think? That's a new one.


That's not the way I see it.


I'm not a fairy. I'm not constrained to believe you if you say the same thing three times.

We have a trust issue, you and I. This can't be resolved by you constantly insisting I should trust you.


Your problem is not of my making.
Click to expand...
It's not about trust, or indeed fairies. It's about evidence. If you want to prove your claim, present your evidence. Show where you got these ideas from, in my posts. Sceptics' forum, remember? You were insisting on this elsewhere.
 
theprestige said:
I just think you want more control over the terms of debate than you're properly entitled to, and that you believe an official forum definition will give you some of that additional control.
Click to expand...

OK, let's go down your little rabbit hole together, so I can better understand where you're coming from.
So, let's assume icerat agrees, and we get a definition of scepticism attached to the introductory paragraph. What happens next? How do I gain this control you claim I want?
Bear in mind that I've not asked for this definition to be included in the MA. It will have no "legal" weight, and won't be enforced by the mods.
Consider also that the few remaining sceptics left on this forum already use the concept of evaluating evidence on claims posted here. We (me and the other handful of sceptics here) employ scepticism all the time here, and no-one has yet (as far as I know) tried to "weaponise" that to gain "more control over the terms of the debate". I have yet to see a single person wield the introductory paragraph on a member, to try to tell them they're "doing it wrong".
So, walk me through it, if you would. icerat has agreed, we now have that definition in place. How do I use it to gain control over the forum?
 
Last edited:
Edited by jimbob: 
quote of subsequently moderated post removed

The definition of skepticism, as applied to this forum, is what the 'skeptics' here do. Describing it is tricky though, since the meanings of words are often disputed here (even the meaning of the word 'meaning'). So it might be easier to provide representative examples and explain how they are 'skeptical.'

Take the quote above for example - it displays many of the characteristics of typical skeptical writings:-

1. A sense of superiority, implying the author is more intelligent, rational, moral, wittier, emotionally stable or - as in this case - braver than his opponent.

2. Calling a person names, either by changing a few letters or inventing a nickname that makes them sound stupid or evil.

3. Eschewing actual facts and logic in favor of content-free insults attacking the poster not the argument.

4. Making up stuff and then doubling down when called out on it.

These are just a few of the weapons a good skeptic has in their armory, to be wielded vigorously against any poor soul who has the temerity to delurk here.

You may recognize some of this from your childhood days on the school playground. The averarge skeptic is much older now, but hasn't grown up intellectually or emotionally. In fact there is some evidence that such people actually regress towards childhood as they get older, which - coupled with the delusion that their age and experience has embued them with superior intellect - can lead to quite lively debates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Ramjets said:
The definition of skepticism, as applied to this forum, is what the 'skeptics' here do.
Click to expand...

Well, no, it isn't. There is a definition of scepticism, objective and divorced from this forum. Whether or not forum members practise this is a matter of some debate.
Roger Ramjets said:
Describing it is tricky though, since the meanings of words are often disputed here (even the meaning of the word 'meaning'). So it might be easier to provide representative examples and explain how they are 'skeptical.'

Take the quote above for example - it displays many of the characteristics of typical skeptical writings:-

1. A sense of superiority, implying the author is more intelligent, rational, moral, wittier, emotionally stable or - as in this case - braver than his opponent.
Click to expand...
I am dealing with irrational people who are making things up. It's hard not to feel superior to them- but I don't. I do want to help them, though, which is why I keep giving them chances to redeem themselves.
Roger Ramjets said:
2. Calling a person names, either by changing a few letters or inventing a nickname that makes them sound stupid or evil.
Click to expand...
It's a long name. I don't object to people calling me CY, and don't feel belittled by that. YMMV.
Roger Ramjets said:
3. Eschewing actual facts and logic in favor of content-free insults attacking the poster not the argument.
Click to expand...

I have argued with facts and logic: Arthwollipot is refusing to acknowledge this, or to respond in kind. So is theprestige.
Roger Ramjets said:
4. Making up stuff and then doubling down when called out on it.
Click to expand...

So, Arth again. And theprestige. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Roger Ramjets said:
These are just a few of the weapons a good skeptic has in their armory, to be wielded vigorously against any poor soul who has the temerity to delurk here.

You may recognize some of this from your childhood days on the school playground. The averarge skeptic is much older now, but hasn't grown up intellectually or emotionally. In fact there is some evidence that such people actually regress towards childhood as they get older, which - coupled with the delusion that their age and experience has embued them with superior intellect - can lead to quite lively debates.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
OK, let's go down your little rabbit hole together, so I can better understand where you're coming from.
So, let's assume icerat agrees, and we get a definition of scepticism attached to the introductory paragraph. What happens next? How do I gain this control you claim I want?
Bear in mind that I've not asked for this definition to be included in the MA. It will have no "legal" weight, and won't be enforced by the mods.
Consider also that the few remaining sceptics left on this forum already use the concept of evaluating evidence on claims posted here. We (me and the other handful of sceptics here) employ scepticism all the time here, and no-one has yet (as far as I know) tried to "weaponise" that to gain "more control over the terms of the debate". I have yet to see a single person wield the introductory paragraph on a member, to try to tell them they're "doing it wrong".
So, walk me through it, if you would. icerat has agreed, we now have that definition in place. How do I use it to gain control over the forum?
Click to expand...
What's to walk through? The appeal to dictionary is already well understood.
 
theprestige said:
What's to walk through? The appeal to dictionary is already well understood.
Click to expand...
Then this whole spiel about control and enforcement was what, exactly? Complete rubbish, is what. Well, glad we've cleared that up.
I'll PM icerat when I get the time, and we'll see if we can get a definition written in to the introductory paragraph. Nice to have you onboard.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Then this whole spiel about control and enforcement was what, exactly?
Click to expand...
As I've explained before, I view appeal to dictionary as an attempt to control the debate. It's a variation of the appeal to authority.

You really want a walkthrough? Here you go:

Benthic Moth: I question the premise that 9/11 was an outside job.​
​
Cosmic Yak: That's not how we do skepticism around here, try again.​

I never said you'd use it to take over the forum; you pronounced that nonsense, not me. I never said it was fascism; you pronounced that nonsense, not me.

I'm not particularly concerned about attempts to control the debate. There's plenty here who try it, in one way or another. I just don't trust your motives for wanting an official forum definition. I also think the forum should avoid such a thing, as a matter of principle.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
There is a definition of scepticism, objective and divorced from this forum. Whether or not forum members practise this is a matter of some debate.
Click to expand...
You are right there. The problem is that the definition of skepticism rarely aligns with those who describe themselves as skeptics.

Since this forum is literally called 'International Skeptics" one might suppose it could act as a good example of the practice of skepticism. I posit that it is indeed a good example, since I have seen 'skeptics' behaving similarly on other forums.

Cosmic Yak said:
I am dealing with irrational people who are making things up. It's hard not to feel superior to them- but I don't. I do want to help them, though, which is why I keep giving them chances to redeem themselves.
Click to expand...
Everyone is irrational. Most people have great difficulty avoiding it. In some disciplines rationality is essential though, so irrationality is naturally weeded out. The result is boredom for everyone except those who are looking for useful answers to practical questions, which is not what people come here for.

Cosmic Yak said:
I have argued with facts and logic: Arthwollipot is refusing to acknowledge this, or to respond in kind. So is theprestige.
Click to expand...
I'll take you word for it, but in this case there were no facts or logic to be seen.
Cosmic Yak said:
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Click to expand...
Have you ever wondered why the vast majority of 'skeptics' are men? Male deer have huge antlers, peacocks have huge feathers, humans have huge brains... and they are all used for the same thing.
 
theprestige said:
As I've explained before, I view appeal to dictionary as an attempt to control the debate. It's a variation of the appeal to authority.

You really want a walkthrough? Here you go:

Benthic Moth: I question the premise that 9/11 was an outside job.​
​
Cosmic Yak: That's not how we do skepticism around here, try again.​
Click to expand...

So that's it? All this feverish paranoid waffle about control and enforcement boils down to this?
OK, let's break this down a bit.
1. The imaginary quote you attribute to me makes no reference to any definition of scepticism in the introductory paragraph. Your alarmist claim of me trying to 'weaponise it' falls at the first hurdle.
2. You claim you never said I'd use it to take over the forum, yet here you are, putting words in my mouth where I speak for the whole forum. Get your story straight.
3. This made-up exchange is not based on anything I have ever said on this forum. I have asked you before to support your claims about my motives and thinking with quotes from my posts. You have failed to do so- in fact, you haven't even tried. Hitchens' Razor is staring you in the face here.
4. Even if this product of your own mind ever happened, so what? Any inclusion of a definition of scepticism would not give my posts any more weight or authority. If I were ever to make such a statement, it could be easily dismissed. Moreover, if the definition were to have the "official authority" you claim it would, then it would apply equally to everyone here. It would not grant me any more authority than any other member.
theprestige said:
I never said you'd use it to take over the forum; you pronounced that nonsense, not me.
Click to expand...
I see no meaningful distinction between 'take control of the forum' and 'take control over the terms of debate'.
theprestige said:
I never said it was fascism; you pronounced that nonsense, not me.
Click to expand...
I said it was the first step on the road to fascism: do try to be accurate. I explained that, as you claiming I wanted to stifle opposition and silence anyone disagreeing with me- and you agreed with that description.
theprestige said:
I'm not particularly concerned about attempts to control the debate. There's plenty here who try it, in one way or another. I just don't trust your motives for wanting an official forum definition. I also think the forum should avoid such a thing, as a matter of principle.
Click to expand...

Your mistrust of my motives is not founded in reality, and I see no reason why anyone should pander to your paranoia.
To what 'principle' are you referring?
 
theprestige said:
Yes. This is all it ever was. You built it up, into a bizarre paranoid fantasy of fascist takeover of the forum, in your own head.
Click to expand...
No, I did not. If you hadn't noticed, I have referenced everything with direct quotes from you. If you're going to admit your previous posts were utter rubbish, then we're in agreement. If not, then you are being blatantly dishonest.
You choose.
Oh, and you still haven't presented a single shred of evidence, nor explained what principle you were talking about.
 
Folks back to the topic of the thread - which is NOT each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
arthwollipot said:
I'd like a link to the discussion about vegetarianism, actually. I can't believe that there would be anything other than a tiny minority of people who were very strongly and angrily against vegetarianism.
Click to expand...
I had a look, but neither of the two threads I was referring to showed up under that tag of vegetarian/vegetarianism. Not having a search function is really, really annoying! I can't even look in threads started by me on my profile, because that's disappeared as well. Plus, some of the saltier exchanges ended up in AAH. If we ever do get the search function back, we can revisit this.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Yep, since absolutely nobody can agree on it. Leave the name though.

What did you think of "The International Skeptics Forum is an online community dedicated to fostering logical and critical thought"?
Click to expand...


Chanakya said:
Empirical as well. That's a separate ingredient, I think, and a necessary one.
Click to expand...

OK, so how about "The ISF is an online community dedicated to fostering logical, empirical and critical thought"?
 
Fostering?

Not Promoting, Employing, or even just using?

Does the Forum exist to educate and does it have to justify its existence?

Just asking questions. :duck:
 
Cosmic Yak said:
And you are?
Click to expand...
I'm theprestige, pleased to meet you.

I described this forum as historically more of a TAM alum social club than anything else. Arth contends that this description is false, because it doesn't accurately describe his own journey. But arth's journey is not the one true measure of the forum's history. I stand by my description, which allows for arth's journey without defining the forum by it.

My position is that skeptical inquiry was incidental to the establishment of the forum. There's a reason so many of the most regularly active threads are social games of one kind or another. There's a reason Gravy moved on, when his work here was done.
 
theprestige said:
I'm theprestige, pleased to meet you.

I described this forum as historically more of a TAM alum social club than anything else. Arth contends that this description is false, because it doesn't accurately describe his own journey. But arth's journey is not the one true measure of the forum's history. I stand by my description, which allows for arth's journey without defining the forum by it.

My position is that skeptical inquiry was incidental to the establishment of the forum. There's a reason so many of the most regularly active threads are social games of one kind or another. There's a reason Gravy moved on, when his work here was done.
Click to expand...
Would it be nice, in your opinion, to have sceptical inquiry return to a more central role/place in this forum? Or are you happy with the social games (which I see as partisan bickering) predominating here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom