On What Basis Does "Skeptics" Appear in the Forum Name?

[caveman1917]

Libertarianism (the no government kind)

You should be even more skeptical of it and realize that what you (the US) understand as "libertarianism" isn't libertarianism at all but a form of fascism.

Nope, that is definitely a minority view point here (GOP excepted).

I'm with JihadJane on this one.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Not a true skeptic" is the most pathetic way to exclude someone from your community imaginable. It's also a paraphrase of a common logical fallacy.

 

[newyorkguy]

In what way does ISF aid or support skepticism, or even act skeptically?...On other boards with skeptic or skepticism in their name, at least lip-service is paid to skepticism, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence in action here. Given that this is named International Skeptics Forum, is there a responsibility that the forum is seen to act skeptically itself?...

I'm not clear on this. When you say the "the forum" should act skeptically are you referring to the members or to the administrators? To the design of the forum or to the discussions themselves?

Other skeptic boards at least pay lip service to skepticism. How do they do that? What are they doing that ISF isn't doing.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm not clear on this. When you say the "the forum" should act skeptically are you referring to the members or to the administrators? To the design of the forum or to the discussions themselves?

I'm trying to look at it from a non-skeptical perspective, and it appears the forum - neither in content nor administration - seems to show that purpose at anything more than a casual level. Like the name.

There is a sub-current of skepticism, but if you look even more closely, a lot of skepticism is actually cynicism disguised as skepticism. Note: I see no problem with cynicism, but call it cynicism. An example is a thread I was reading a while back where some bloke posted his hugely impressive credentials on the topic. Internationally credible and verifiable information which enabled the person to give a unique, authoritative view of the subject.

And what happens? It turns into a squabble because several dicks start questioning everything while being unable to present an actual argument espousing any reason to think differently to what had been said. Argument for the sake of it, destroying what should have been a glittering example of what a thread should be.

Other skeptic boards at least pay lip service to skepticism. How do they do that? What are they doing that ISF isn't doing.

The few others - aside from Skeptical Community, which isn't even slightly skeptical - dedicate resources to protect the worthy and dump the unworthy. They don't allow trolling, which is a good start.

That said, those boards have few members.

 

[tuco]

As it was said, unlike chess or literature, scepticism is not a hobby, not subject to study and/or to have discussion about.

Forum is multi-player notepad so competitiveness shows necessarily, unless there is common goal, common interests, like in case of chess or literature.

Trolling is dialogue. There is no trolling without someone feeding trolls. That is another aspect some people seem to either enjoy or are not aware of. Without feeding, there is spamming, and I tend to agree that spamming does not contribute to anything.

 

[The Atheist]

As it was said, unlike chess or literature, scepticism is not a hobby, not subject to study and/or to have discussion about.

On with the complete nonsense.

The best thing a skeptic can do is be skeptical about his/her own beliefs.

Here are a couple of handy pieces on the subject to help you out:

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptical_ethicsmdash_what_should_we_investigate/

 

[tuco]

I do not care about that so I am not gonna waste time and energy reading it. I am trying to be sceptical. I know what it means.

On literature forum people debate literature. On sceptical forum people do not debate scepticism.

 

[newyorkguy]

I'm trying to look at it from a non-skeptical perspective, and it appears the forum - neither in content nor administration - seems to show that purpose at anything more than a casual level. Like the name...

Okay thanks, I understand what you're saying and I pretty much agree.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is a sub-current of skepticism, but if you look even more closely, a lot of skepticism is actually cynicism disguised as skepticism. Note: I see no problem with cynicism, but call it cynicism. An example is a thread I was reading a while back where some bloke posted his hugely impressive credentials on the topic. Internationally credible and verifiable information which enabled the person to give a unique, authoritative view of the subject.

.

I don't mean to seem cynical, but typically when one gives an example, they usually give the example instead of concluding that, in this case, he had "hugely impressive credentials."

Link to the thread, and I promise to give it a gander

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP. Gosh, not sure how to begin. As a Skepticoi, I can assert nothing, but here goes a tentative provisional approach, doubtful from the beginning, as per what I think I might hesitantly take as a request.

Philosophically, I doubt absolutely certain knowledge is possible. Although not quite a post-empiricist, I observe that science all takes place in the mind, verifying models against other mental constructs, not against a pure, unchanging and known standard. Yet there is sympathy for the old-time realists, as while their insistence on the reliability of the senses as truth givers was mistaken, the senses can act in that way at times (not much to interpret from a pin prick).

About all we have to save us from drowning in doubt is the arrow of time, which fixes all potential outcomes into an indelible, yet ambiguous, historical track record in the physical world.

Don't worry, as a Pyrrhonist, I suspended all judgment when reading the OP. However, I never did understand how skepticism would or could be exercised in the way you seek, since it should result in highly variable responses on the board. But I am left to wonder, are there really other readers of this thread, or am I in a solipsistic nightmare?... Phew, just checked the mirror; no way I'd let reality have me look like that, it must indeed be someone else's creation.

 

[newyorkguy]

I got the impression fairly early on that around here skepticism can be carried just so far. A poster once wrote that he abhors Muslims, hates Jews, reviles Catholics and can not stand Protestants. Further, Arab men disgust him and he would be very happy see them wiped from the face of the earth.

I responded that, quite frankly, I considered the poster to be an absolute raving maniac and was quickly yellow carded for being uncivil and attacking the arguer not the argument.

Only...

What was the argument? The poster was expressing a personal belief, weren't they? They didn't include any evidence showing, I don't know, why Arab men -- or at least the average Arab man -- were objectively disgusting. Why Muslims were abhorrent or Jews deserved to be hated. He just stated it. I guess I could have just stated I didn't agree, but that's not much of an counter-argument. Wasn't I really arguing that the level of hate expressed in the post -- reviling, hating and being disgusted by perfect strangers based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs -- wasn't a rational argument? That the argument was one that, by most standards, would be considered unhinged?

How would I have gone about attacking his "argument," anyway. Cite studies showing Arab men are not disgusting? That Jews, Catholics and Protestants as a group are quite likable? It seemed more honest -- and a lot more on point -- to dismiss the argument as maniacal.

If someone states a personal belief does questioning it become off-limits? (You can attack an argument but never an arguer.) But how could that be on a so-called skeptics forum? What if the personal belief was to just state that the person believes the Earth is flat. Would it be permissible to say, "No it's not flat," and possibly link to photos of the Earth taken from the Space Station? Aren't you still attacking their personal belief? What if they responded by writing, "I don't care what those (probably doctored) photos show; I believe the Earth is flat." Could you just respond, "Then you're an idiot?" Wouldn't someone who sincerely thinks the Earth is flat, thinks NASA photos are fraudulent, fall within the broadly accepted definition of the word, "idiot?" In the same way someone who hates, reviles, can't stand and is disgusted by nearly half the Earth's population fits the broadly accepted definition of the phrase, "raving maniac?" What if thinking that is my personal belief?

Could I have gotten away with it if I had been careful to write, "That's an argument only a raving maniac would make?"

As a great man once said, "So many questions, so little time."

 

[tuco]

Interaction leads to organization or order*. It was noted before that we, the community here, are collection of individuals being responsible for the state of the community.

To me then it boils down to this: What is my responsibility?, and How to interact with regards to such responsibility? Now I do not want to be in community which does not respect human rights or denies facts for example.

What to do when encountered by poster posting material not respecting human rights? I call them idiots with hope it will not be pleasant to them. That is my responsibility. Unlike trying to convince them of my cause. They have right to not respect human rights and I have right too, just its against rules here.

What to do when encountered by poster posting material denying facts? Depends. AGW concerns me so maybe idiot too but maybe just education. Bigfoot? Does not concern me, deny all you want. etc

And this is what I know of. There is stuff I do not know of in my head.

---

edit: *or chaos?

 

[newyorkguy]

I agree but I am trying to address the topic which is, or so I guess, what makes this a skeptic's site? Obviously some are doubtful this really is a skeptic's site. That the name comes from the original association with JREF and is just that: a name.

What sets this site apart from others in my mind isn't the level of skepticism encountered but the moderation which prevents (or at least greatly reduces) the really bad behavior you usually see on message boards. But if by skeptic we mean questioning things, I see less of it here than on some other sites. The only thing many ISF posters seem to be skeptical about is whether anyone besides themselves knows what they're talking about!

 

[arthwollipot]

Even if you sincerely believe that a member is an idiot, the forum rules require that you bit your tongue and keep your opinion to yourself. No-one is forcing you to reply to that person. If you can't find anything to say that isn't about the poster, then just don't say anything at all.

 

[tuco]

I know that. I rather get banned than stick around people like that.

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't want to take this thread off-topic, or get into matters that probably should be in FMF. The point I was trying to make was the forum's orientation.

I think the original context for "skeptic" was James Randi's vetting of the paranormal, occult and supernatural. To follow in his footsteps so to speak. The forum was begun by the Randi organization, was it not?

Has the forum morphed into something else? I would say so, but that's the way the forum was originally set up.

 

[tuco]

Its not off topic. Interaction leads to evolution, be it order or chaos. 'Forum orientation' is derivative of what kind of content members post here.

So for example, if member(s) post(s) here material suggesting that infringement of basic human rights is OK, and others join in to debate it (giving it legitimacy), then that will be (part) 'forum orientation'.

As for Mr Randi legacy. I know so little I should probably stfu, however, makes me wonder how much time and energy would Mr Randi devote to 'nonsenses' like Bigfoot, 9/11 or shroud.

 

[The Atheist]

The point I was trying to make was the forum's orientation.

As JREF, clearly male homosexual. Nowadays, who knows?

 

[fuelair]

On What Basis Does "Skeptics" Appear in the Forum Name?


The basis that it can!!!

 

[Leumas]

On What Basis Does "Skeptics" Appear in the Forum Name?


The basis that it can!!!

But certainly not on any bases that it is by any warping of the term.

If anything, the better than a thousand words picture below depicts precisely what in fact is done to skepticism on this site.

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_51282550f35ebd0e00.jpg[/imgw]