How to spot a rookie skeptic

[varwoche]

I've seen plenty of very passionate defenders of the skeptic idea amongst those who've been around here, in these forums, for a very long time.

For sure. However I get the impression that people who go overboard are often newbs. For instance, starting a thread to mock woos when the thread starter is a serial offender.

Pardon me if this has already been discussed but there's another category of rookie: nutjobs who latch onto skepticism as justification for their nutty beliefs, e.g. truthers, GW deniers, and pedophiles.

 

[lomiller]

Ah. You think that, do you? That's different from what kellyb and Hlafordlaes have said here on this thread.

To be clear -- in case you haven't read all of this thread, and especially my comments -- I'm in full agreement with your larger point. However, as far as I am concerned, there was this element of doubt : It is obvious (to me) that an overwhelming majority here on these forums subscribe to 'our' view of what skepticism is -- which is a view that agrees with what you say. But the question that remains unanswered (or at least, not quite unanswered, but unsubstantiated) is this : Do self-described skeptics outside of these forums also subscribe to "our" view, that is, to "our" particular usage for the term "skepticism"?

You seem to saying, here, that many self-described skeptics think differently. Do you mean here in these forums, or do you mean skeptics outside of these forums?

If you mean within these forums, then obviously that is your subjective take. And one obvious way to substantiate that would be hold a poll.

But if you mean outside of these forums, then can you substantiate that? (I don't mean literally back that up, I don't mean actually go to the trouble to produce 'evidence' in the form of quotes, et cetera. I mean, can you simply discuss which particular skeptic spaces, online or offline, you've visited, from where you carry off this impression?)

Not everyone is guilty obviously but I think it’s a rampant problem in mainstream skepticism both in these forums and elsewhere. Consider 2 approaches.
1) I believe X so I challenge the people who believe Y for evidence, then critique their evidence
2) I look at the evidence for X, I look at the evidence for Y and decide which makes the more compelling case, or decide that nether makes a strong enough case to reach a conclusion.

IME we see a lot more of 1 than 2 in mainstream skepticism even though it’s almost no different than the process used by those the skeptic is attempting to refute. It’s relevantly easy to find respected skeptics who insist that’s how skepticism is supposed to be done even though when it comes right down to it the thought process is little different than the woo-woo theories the skeptic is trying to debunk.

You may get some marginal difference like the changes in phrasing so they can claim “I’m not trying to promote any idea so I don’t need to provide evidence”. When you take a step back and look at the overall pattern, however, it’s usually clear what the person supports.

 

[arthwollipot]

I know what the dictionary has to say but I have no idea how this word is "officially" defined in ISF.

What makes you think that ISF uses different definitions of words than the rest of the world?

 

[alfaniner]

What makes you think that ISF uses different definitions of words than the rest of the world?

I, for one, thought "guillotine" meant something else.

 

[Roboramma]

I, for one, thought "guillotine" meant something else.

Well, they are both potentially lethal.

 

[psionl0]

What makes you think that ISF uses different definitions of words than the rest of the world?

Read this thread and all of the threads that argue about the meaning of atheism and you might get an idea of what I am referring to.

 

[arthwollipot]

Read this thread and all of the threads that argue about the meaning of atheism and you might get an idea of what I am referring to.

That ISF has "official" definitions of contentious words?

 

[Mr Salk]

Rookie Skeptics post quick replies to the Title without reading the thread.

 

[dudalb]

The "Mr.Spock" syndrome. They try to be totally logical, dismissing any emotional content as "woo".