re: "skeptical movement"

[mijopaalmc]

Well, one might want to review the sociological definition of social movement:

Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Well, one might want to review the sociological definition of social movement:

But we are not members of formal or informal skeptical groups

focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.

 

[clerihew80]

tennents of skepticism? This is something of my point, skepticism simply a method or at the very most a methodology, not a world view.

Well, the central tenet of skepticism is to require sufficient evidence before accepting a claim. I never said that skepticism was a "world view," however you want to define that.

I think the movement associated with it is different than actual skepticism, which may just be an outlook different people have in common.

I agree. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who are non-religious, who reject the supernatural - who think astrology, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathy, etc. are all bunk - but who have never heard of James Randi or Skeptic magazine. They simply reject these and other claims intuitively for lack of evidence, and don't give it much thought beyond that. I wouldn't call these people members of the Skeptical movement, even though technically they are Skeptics. But if you're here in this forum it may be because you think the skeptical message is important and worth educating the general public about (or you're like Tai Chi and you want to debate/antagonize skeptics). This is the basis of skeptical activism as opposed to just plain skepticism.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Well, the central tenet of skepticism is to require sufficient evidence before accepting a claim. I never said that skepticism was a "world view," however you want to define that.


I agree. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who are non-religious, who reject the supernatural - who think astrology, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathy, etc. are all bunk - but who have never heard of James Randi or Skeptic magazine. They simply reject these and other claims intuitively for lack of evidence, and don't give it much thought beyond that. I wouldn't call these people members of the Skeptical movement, even though technically they are Skeptics. But if you're here in this forum it may be because you think the skeptical message is important and worth educating the general public about (or you're like Tai Chi and you want to debate/antagonize skeptics). This is the basis of skeptical activism as opposed to just plain skepticism.

Or one could be here for entertainment, education, or discussion. This site is not exactly a place where a lot of people come to educate the general public, its more of a place to preach to the quire or to the woo woos, not the general public though.

I certainly am not here for activism, and I think a lot of other people are not either.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But we are not members of formal or informal skeptical groups

There are, however, many skeptical organizations. Just because posters here do not necessarily belong to any of these organizations doesn't mean that such organizations don't exist, which seems to be the response to T'ai Chi's straw man of the "organized skeptical movement" (note the singular). I do not mean to imply that all skeptical organizations hold the same beliefs about all issues. Nonetheless, skeptical organizations do engage in social activities (e.g., About CSI and "The Amazing Meeting").

 

[clerihew80]

This site is not exactly a place where a lot of people come to educate the general public,

But do you think it's important that the general public be educated about skepticism? And do you learn things here that you can use to spread the skeptical message in your everyday life? I know that, talking with co-workers, I often bring up things that I've read about on this site. This is a form of education, since otherwise they might never hear about the outrages of, say, Sylvia Browne.

I certainly am not here for activism, and I think a lot of other people are not either.

Do you support the activities of James Randi? Because Randi is the very definition of an activist skeptic.

 

[CFLarsen]

First, because there isn't, and reality is important.

Second, it must be protested because certain people use the idea that we have ulterior motives as part of a skeptical movement to commit posion well fallacies.

Or, as T'ai Chi does, dismiss skepticism out of hand because of what a couple of skeptics are doing that T'ai Chi finds criticizable.

That's all it is: A crude attempt of dismissing skepticism altogether. The amazing thing is that T'ai Chi actually thinks he is making headway.

Not very bright.

 

[ReligionStudent]

But do you think it's important that the general public be educated about skepticism? And do you learn things here that you can use to spread the skeptical message in your everyday life? I know that at work, talking with co-workers, I often bring up things that I've read about on this site. This is a form of education, since otherwise they might never hear about the outrages of, say, Sylvia Browne.

My discussions do not make me part of a movement, it is social interaction. I discuss knitting or archaeological discoveries, but that does not make me part of a movement. To say that education is my goal in these concersations is false.

Do you support the activities of James Randi? Because Randi is the very definition of an activist skeptic.

Just because you agree with someone or like their stance does not link you to them in a movement.

 

[CFLarsen]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

Let's.

Where, in this document, is "skeptical movement" used?

 

[Zep]

Do you support the activities of James Randi? Because Randi is the very definition of an activist skeptic.

No he isn't. He's just a very highly publicised one.

But then you could say the same for Dawkins. Or Sagan and Feynman when they were alive. Or the MythBusters now. But were/are they all the very definition of "activist skeptics"? I doubt it.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well, they do refer to themselves as a "society" and an "organization". While they do not call themselves a "skeptical movement", they are a collection of individuals that have come together for a collective purpose (i.e., "the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects) and thus fall under the sociological definition of a social movement.

Just because the Skeptics Society, CSI, JREF, and other skeptical organizations are social in nature doesn't mean that they are identical to pseudoscientific or religious social movements, which is the straw man to which proponents of such social movements like to appeal in an attempt to plead some sort of epistemic relativism. However, it is equally foolish to claim that such societies and organizations are in some way social movements and it is therefore more productive determine how the skeptical social movement differs from other social movements.

Again, why, especially in light of this evidence, is it so important that an "organized skeptical movement" not exist?

 

[clerihew80]

No he isn't. He's just a very highly publicised one.

James Randi is recognized as the world's preeminent debunker of pseudoscience. He currently devotes almost all of his time to exposing frauds, offering, as we all know, a million dollar prize, running an educational foundation, maintaining a website, publishing books, and appearing in the media - all in service of skepticism and debunking. When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic.

But then you could say the same for Dawkins. Or Sagan and Feynman when they were alive. Or the MythBusters now. But were/are they all the very definition of "activist skeptics"?

No, because, while skeptics, they are better known for their work in the fields of evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics. The Mythbusters concentrate primarily on urban legends and blowing things up. None of them have devoted anything close to the amount of time that James Randi has to challenging all forms of irrationality and superstition. They're not comparable.

"The very definition of" is an expression that implies a close correspondence to the accepted definition of a word or phrase. This is how Wikipedia defines "activist skeptic":

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.​

I'd say this a pretty fair match for Randi, wouldn't you? Note that Randi's past exploits (i.e. Project Alpha) are even used as examples of what an activist skeptic does!

 

[athon]

I refer to my post (#7) firstly, to reiterate that one must look at the context in which 'activist' and 'movement' is used in before really making any bold references.

In both cases, the suggestion of politics underlies the words. As far as I know, Randi has not concentrated any efforts on petitioning state or federal changes within any country. His field is more educational, as he tries to change views through speaking directly to the public. Therefore any label of 'activist' must attempt to distance the definition from being one concerning political reformation or change.

I'm sure you can say that many skeptics, including Randi, would like to see changes to the laws in many cases. And they might comment specifically on the changes they would personally like to see. However, I hesitate to call this activism.

Likewise, a movement implies more than a general shared desire to see vague changes, and requires more of an organised, concentrated effort on changing how society functions through specifics.

I won't get upset if somebody refers to a skeptical movement. I might even feel flattered that they see enough merit in the shared desires of skeptics to call it one. However if their context implies actions and organisation that doesn't exist, I'll call them on that.

Athon

 

[Zep]

James Randi is recognized as the world's preeminent debunker of pseudoscience. He currently devotes almost all of his time to exposing frauds, offering, as we all know, a million dollar prize, running an educational foundation, maintaining a website, publishing books, and appearing in the media - all in service of skepticism and debunking. When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic.

Again, you mistake public awareness with emminence. Randi acknowledges himself that he is not a scientist. But that he IS a showman. And indeed he is well known to the public. But does that make him a preeminent skeptic? I think you will find that a number of other people have debunked giant myths just as spectacularly as Randi has, and yet their names are almost unknown. Example: Robert W. Wood, of Johns Hopkins University. See if you can find him... Randi certainly looks up to this man!

You also make the mistake of conflating debunking with skepticism. They are not the same, by any stretch of imagination. Once that difference is understood, you can see why it is not a good idea to elevate Randi to the pinnacle of "The Face of Skepticism".

No, because, while skeptics, they are better known for their work in the fields of evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics. The Mythbusters concentrate primarily on urban legends and blowing things up. None of them have devoted anything close to the amount of time that James Randi has to challenging all forms of irrationality and superstition. They're not comparable.

"The very definition of" is an expression that implies a close correspondence to the accepted definition of a word or phrase. This is how Wikipedia defines "activist skeptic":

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.​

I'd say this a pretty fair match for Randi, wouldn't you? Note that Randi's past exploits (i.e. Project Alpha) are even used as examples of what an activist skeptic does!

Ah, "activist skeptic", as opposed to common or garden variety of skeptic? So what would you call Sagan? Was he an activist skeptic? How about Feynman? I'd be interested to know if you have done your homework on them...

 

[wahrheit]

To those who wondered what the fuzz is all about, and why T'ai Chi would open a thread on this:

From now on, whenever someone opposes the notion he or she is an alleged member of "the skeptical movement", T'ai Chi can link to this discussion and write something like "Not everybody agrees with you". Alternatively, he will cherry pick some quotes from this thread, preferably from a well-known, long-time poster of this forum.

Just my two cents.

 

[clerihew80]

Therefore any label of 'activist' must attempt to distance the definition from being one concerning political reformation or change.

Generally, I would use the word 'activist' to mean a vigorous advocate for a political or social cause. In this case, I was talking about the specific designation of "activist skeptic," the definition of which I gave in my previous post.

As far as I know, Randi has not concentrated any efforts on petitioning state or federal changes within any country.

You're splitting hairs here. Randi constantly calls for refocusing of political priorities and the enforcement of statutes that are already on the books. He has advocated petitioning on a few occasions, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/022704dane.html, http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0009.html
Just because he doesn't concentrate on petitioning doesn't disqualify him from being considered an activist. Perhaps he feels there are more productive ways of spending his time? There's a lot more to activism than just mailing a bunch of signatures to government officials, who will most likely ignore them.

 

[athon]

Generally, I would use the word 'activist' to mean a vigorous advocate for a political or social cause. In this case, I was talking about the specific designation of "activist skeptic," the definition of which I gave in my previous post.

Indeed, as I said, one would have to take care to do that. Without such a clarification, the assumption of activist having political connotations would remain. Why go to the trouble of saying 'activist, but not in a political way'? Why not just not use the word in deference for another term?

You're splitting hairs here. Randi constantly calls for refocusing of political priorities and the enforcement of statutes that are already on the books. He has advocated petitioning on a few occasions, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/022704dane.html, http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0009.html
Just because he doesn't concentrate on petitioning doesn't disqualify him from being considered an activist. Perhaps he feels there are more productive ways of spending his time? There's a lot more to activism than just mailing a bunch of signatures to government officials, who will most likely ignore them.

How am I splitting hairs? You're wanting to use the term activist, and I'm telling you what it implies. I'm a teacher. Nobody calls me an 'education activist'. I've written articles and papers on the topic of education reform and how we need it, and still I don't think anybody would quite go so far as to labelling me an activist. To do so would give the impression that I actively go to lengths to encourage policy change by addressing those who could directly do it. Instead, I endeavour to change public opinion.

Take care with the language you use. Naively swinging a word with little view of the connotations it carries will create impressions you never meant to imply.

Athon

 

[clerihew80]

Again, you mistake public awareness with emminence. Randi acknowledges himself that he is not a scientist. But that he IS a showman. And indeed he is well known to the public. But does that make him a preeminent skeptic?

What a quagmire of semantic quibbling this thread has become! If we're talking about eminence in the academic field, then yes, Robert W. Wood trumps Randi. But I was using eminent in the sense of being well-known or conspicuous. I did not confuse eminence with public awareness - eminence can be derived from public awareness depending on the context.

You also make the mistake of conflating debunking with skepticism. They are not the same, by any stretch of imagination.

What?! When did I say they were the same?

 

[clerihew80]

Indeed, as I said, one would have to take care to do that. Without such a clarification, the assumption of activist having political connotations would remain. Why go to the trouble of saying 'activist, but not in a political way'? Why not just not use the word in deference for another term?

Because the word activism is not restricted to political activism.

You're wanting to use the term activist, and I'm telling you what it implies. I'm a teacher.

I don't need you to tell me what the word implies. I didn't sign up for your class.

Instead, I endeavour to change public opinion.

Which is a form of activism. From Wikipedia: "In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws;"

Take care with the language you use. Naively swinging a word with little view of the connotations it carries will create impressions you never meant to imply.

Thanks for the admonishment, teach. I suppose it was naive of me to expect members of this forum to have more than a limited and simplistic conception of the definition of a very common noun.

 

[Zep]

What?! When did I say they were the same?

Here:

When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic.

I'd take Athon's advice if I were you. "Commonly understood" is no such thing - it means different things to different people. Which is why we hope to get some accepted clarification on definitions before we try to move forward.

And if you don't agree, perhaps I could tell you to kindly be rooted?