re: "skeptical movement"

[clerihew80]

As I've said numerous times, however, using the term activist implies actively changing society in some ways (rather than passively, such as change through education).

But not all forms of education are passive. Is it passive to use television and print media to expose frauds, to (yes) actively challenge them to prove their claims?

 

[clerihew80]

ETA: some definitions, for the hell of it -

I don't deny that all of those definitions qualify as activism, but I'm saying that activism is not restricted to "vigorous, aggressive action."

You honestly, seriously see the challenge, Randi's lectures, TAM...etc....as 'vigorous actions'. I think they are incredibly passive, patiently educating the public through programs and media events.

Again, this is just semantic quibbling. It all depends on what level of vigor we're talking about. Are Randi's activities as vigorous as, say, leading a march on the White House? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that they're "incredibly passive." And, by the way, he has been accused more than once of being short on patience!

 

[athon]

I don't deny that all of those definitions qualify as activism, but I'm saying that activism is not restricted to "vigorous, aggressive action."


Again, this is just semantic quibbling. It all depends on what level of vigor we're talking about. Are Randi's activities as vigorous as, say, leading a march on the White House? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that they're "incredibly passive." And, by the way, he has been accused more than once of being short on patience!

Again, I don't see why you've needed to get your back up so much. You're arguing only out of wounded pride or something, and such shadow boxing only serves to make you look thin skinned and defensive.

I personally feel that 'activist' carries heavier implications than those which accurately describe Randi's endeavours. That's all. So, you obviously feel than educational programs and media appearances are vigorous and aggressive. Good for you. I can't argue what you feel, but I can comment on how I view such actions on a social spectrum, and, significantly, how I feel others might see it.

Athon

 

[athon]

But not all forms of education are passive. Is it passive to use television and print media to expose frauds, to (yes) actively challenge them to prove their claims?

Small point, but activism also has to do with changing a 'cause' or a 'political end'. It's more than just asking individuals to put up or shut up; it has to do with changing how society functions. Randi actually avoids challenging educational systems. I once discussed this with him, and it made for a rather interesting chat.

Again, you're free to decide that your own definition does not include 'cause' or 'political end'. It would disagree with the definitions I've seen, though.

Athon

 

[clerihew80]

Again, I don't see why you've needed to get your back up so much. You're arguing only out of wounded pride or something, and such shadow boxing only serves to make you look thin skinned and defensive.

Well, you called me naive and suggested that I was ignorant. I'm sorry, I get thick-skinned when I'm attacked.

So, you obviously feel than educational programs and media appearances are vigorous and aggressive.

I don't feel that way about all educational programs and media appearances. You have this tendency to generalize everything I say.

 

[clerihew80]

Small point, but activism also has to do with changing a 'cause' or a 'political end'. It's more than just asking individuals to put up or shut up; it has to do with changing how society functions. Randi actually avoids challenging educational systems. I once discussed this with him, and it made for a rather interesting chat.

But I would suggest that he works to change how society thinks. In my opinion, this is the most necessary and potent form of activism.

 

[athon]

Well, you called me naive and suggested that I was ignorant. I'm sorry, I get thick-skinned when I'm attacked.

I said you were 'naively throwing' a term around. I was describing your actions as naive. I don't know you. I can't extrapolate that to mean you're universally naive. And if you feel I was 'attacking' you, then I apologise. Your claims and words are under criticism, not you personally.

I don't feel that way about all educational programs and media appearances. You have this tendency to generalize everything I say.

I can only play with what you give me.

So, you're claiming that the JREFs programs and Randi's media appearances are aggressive and vigorous attempts to address social change and / or political ends? Seriously?

But I would suggest that he wants to change how society thinks. I would argue that this is the most necessary and potent form of activism.

Of course he wishes people to think differently. I'd also love for people to think differently. That's why I'm a teacher. Am I an activist? Are all people who try to convince others to behave differently activists?

Athon

 

[sackett]

Skeptics In The Pub have been meeting in beer cellars for twenty years.... yes, there are quite a few table-thumping agreements....
I'm proud to ... push ....You don't have to be part of the movement. But...get out of our way.

That's the spirit!

Our little Bund -- group, sorry -- has some openings for Gauleiter. Interested?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't understand why people fail to grasp that skeptical societies and organizations are social movements since they are groups of individuals who come together with the express purpose of achieving an often formalized set of goals for social change. It really doesn't matter whether skeptics form one centralized group or many small groups acting independently of each other or whether one specific poster belongs to a skeptical organization or society; the fact that such organizations and societies are social in nature makes them social movements. After all, some of the most important movements in history (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement, the Reformation, etc.) consisted of many groups holding diverse opinions (e.g., NAACP, Nation of Islam, Lutheran, Calvinists, etc.) No-one would claim that the Civil Rights Movement or the Reformation were not (social) movements simply because there was no centralized authority governing all the groups involved.

What makes the fact that skepticism gives rise to organizations and societies so different from other motivations to form movements that you can definitively declare that there are no skeptical movements?

 

[ReligionStudent]

I claimed there was not a single skeptical movement. But quite frankly the difference between the civil rights movement and current skeptic organizations is that the skeptic organizations are not all working towards one single goal.

They have seperate goals which all somehow involve skepticism, but as a method, not an ends necessarily.

 

[Invidious]

I claimed there was not a single skeptical movement. But quite frankly the difference between the civil rights movement and current skeptic organizations is that the skeptic organizations are not all working towards one single goal.

They have seperate goals which all somehow involve skepticism, but as a method, not an ends necessarily.

I believe the contention is that all the disparate skeptic organizations' shared regard for education, particularly education in skepticism, is the common denominator.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I claimed there was not a single skeptical movement. But quite frankly the difference between the civil rights movement and current skeptic organizations is that the skeptic organizations are not all working towards one single goal.

They have seperate goals which all somehow involve skepticism, but as a method, not an ends necessarily.

You might actually want to investigate that claim before you take it as truth. Many skeptical organizations have mission statements and therefore it is easy to determine the purpose for which they say they exist. Wikipedia has a extensive list of skeptical organizations from which you can access the websites and read the mission statements or descriptions of such skeptical organizations as Australian Skeptics, the Center for Inquiry, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Irish Skeptics, the James Randi Educational Foundation, the New England Skeptical Society, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (its statement is forthcoming, but it is significant that it is planned), and the Skeptics Society. While this is certainly not meant to be an exhaustive list or even a statistical sample of all skeptical organizations, it does demonstrate that a limited set of skeptical organizations hold certain goals in common despite being only philosophically connected. As I have said before, I am not trying prove that there is one single, centralized Skeptical Movement or that everyone who self-identifies as a skeptic belongs to a skeptical organization; however, when skeptics come together with the purpose of creating organizations and societies devoted to disseminating skepticism (a goal which I don't think is wrong) skepticism ceases to be an individual endeavor and enters the realm of group actions and social movements.

Given the above provisos about what I believe and examples of the goals of skeptical organizations, I don't understand why people continue to insist that there are no skeptical movements or that independent organizations do not somehow, in the abstract, represent a larger movement. It seems as if there almost some sort of benefit to stubbornly rejecting the sociological aspects of skepticism.

 

[Moochie]

No, that's not my point. However, skeptical organizations do take political action (e.g.,the CSI amicus curiae in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Skeptics Society amicus curiae in van Orden v Perry, the Center for Inquiry's Office of Public Policy and its numerous amici curiae), so to claim that they do not constitute social movements is illogical.

Your opinion's as good as mine. No one's denying that disparate groups of people go to court for all kinds of reasons, but inferring a movement from that, let alone a skeptical movement, requires extraordinary mental gymnastics.

And I think you are being more than a little disingenuous citing skeptics' role in these cases. Acting as a "friend of the court" is evidence of what? Did you check who else was acting in that capacity in any of those cases?

Although the Center for Inquiry is not a social movement per se because it operates within a pre-existing social structure, it represents a social institution that has arisen from a social movement. This, however, does not mean every skeptic belongs to a skeptical movement but to deny that there is no skeptical movement because all skeptics are not in one monolithic organization make about as much sense as to claim that there was no Civil Right Movement because the NAACP did not agree with the philosophy of the Nation of Islam.

And your attempt to create a coherent picture of a "skeptical movement" by drawing lines to connect every dot bearing the letters s-k-e-p-t-i-c makes an equal amount of (non)sense.

M.

 

[Moochie]

I wouldn't necessarily argue with starting one (it would depend on what went into it and its stated goals etc).

Many of the skeptics I know would balk at the notion of an "official skeptical movement," as do I.

The idea is odious and deserves to be put down, IMNSHO.

M.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your opinion's as good as mine. No one's denying that disparate groups of people go to court for all kinds of reasons, but inferring a movement from that, let alone a skeptical movement, requires extraordinary mental gymnastics.

And I think you are being more than a little disingenuous citing skeptics' role in these cases. Acting as a "friend of the court" is evidence of what? Did you check who else was acting in that capacity in any of those cases?



And your attempt to create a coherent picture of a "skeptical movement" by drawing lines to connect every dot bearing the letters s-k-e-p-t-i-c makes an equal amount of (non)sense.

M.

Do you deliberately ignore what I say?

I have never said that there was a monolithic Skeptical Movement. Nonetheless, many skeptical organizations share similar goals because they are philosophically related through skepticism, just as the various civil right groups were all conceptually united in the desire for legal equality of African-Americans and all the Protestant movements during the Reformation were conceptually related to one another by their desire to reform (or re-form) the Catholic Church. However, no-one denies that there was a Civil Rights Movement or a Reformation because they both consisted of many groups with diverse beliefs.

Why is skepticism so different?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it so important to skeptics that their collective endeavors not be called a movement?

 

[ReligionStudent]

You might actually want to investigate that claim before you take it as truth. Many skeptical organizations have mission statements and therefore it is easy to determine the purpose for which they say they exist. Wikipedia has a extensive list of skeptical organizations from which you can access the websites and read the mission statements or descriptions of such skeptical organizations as Australian Skeptics, the Center for Inquiry, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Irish Skeptics, the James Randi Educational Foundation, the New England Skeptical Society, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (its statement is forthcoming, but it is significant that it is planned), and the Skeptics Society. While this is certainly not meant to be an exhaustive list or even a statistical sample of all skeptical organizations, it does demonstrate that a limited set of skeptical organizations hold certain goals in common despite being only philosophically connected. As I have said before, I am not trying prove that there is one single, centralized Skeptical Movement or that everyone who self-identifies as a skeptic belongs to a skeptical organization; however, when skeptics come together with the purpose of creating organizations and societies devoted to disseminating skepticism (a goal which I don't think is wrong) skepticism ceases to be an individual endeavor and enters the realm of group actions and social movements.

Given the above provisos about what I believe and examples of the goals of skeptical organizations, I don't understand why people continue to insist that there are no skeptical movements or that independent organizations do not somehow, in the abstract, represent a larger movement. It seems as if there almost some sort of benefit to stubbornly rejecting the sociological aspects of skepticism.

The Australian Skeptic site - Concerned with testing claims, except for the line

To encourage Australians and the Australian news media to adopt a critical attitude towards paranormal claims and to understand that to introduce or to entertain a hypothesis does not constitute confirmation or proof of that hypothesis.

Mostly about testing

CSI- Pretty much all about testing

NESS- Also some on testing

JREF- Also some focus on testing

In the case of the CSI and largely the Australian Skeptic Society, as well as NESS and JREF to a lesser degree, there is a confusion between scientifically, and naturally skeptically, testing paranormal claims, and a skeptic movement.

Yes, skepticism is a necessary means to test paranormal claims. Doing so is not necessarily promoting skepticism, but actually exploring the world. I should hope that the JREF, NESS, CSI, or others would all admit if something paranormal occured. This would not be non-skeptical, but it certainly would not be some part of a skeptic movement.

In short, I think many of these groups would be more of a scientific or paranormal research/debunking movement than a skeptic one. Those may be interlinked in many peoples' minds but they are not equivalent.

 

[Moochie]

Do you deliberately ignore what I say?

I have never said that there was a monolithic Skeptical Movement. Nonetheless, many skeptical organizations share similar goals because they are philosophically related through skepticism, just as the various civil right groups were all conceptually united in the desire for legal equality of African-Americans and all the Protestant movements during the Reformation were conceptually related to one another by their desire to reform (or re-form) the Catholic Church. However, no-one denies that there was a Civil Rights Movement or a Reformation because they both consisted of many groups with diverse beliefs.

Why is skepticism so different?

Well, until quite recently in this thread the reference was toward a skeptical movement, singular. No one's denying there are groups of skeptics about, grouping together for everything from having regular piss-ups to card nights. Many skeptics are members of a variety of groups, the basis of which can include just about any human endeavor under the sun.

To "unite" these disparate groups under any sort of ideological umbrella, as you are appearing to do, is ridiculous.

M.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I think the issue here is that skepticism is not an ends, but a means. Its like teaching someone math. Is there a movement to teach people math? well maybe there is, but is it really comparable to something like the civil rights movement? Skepticism is a methodology that leads to other movements, like debunking paranormal claims, doubt of Inelligent Design, and subsequently it not being taught as science, human equality, atheism, etc.

Once someone has been told "look, evidence is important in determining facts" Where would the skeptic movement go from there with that individual? Not far, it is up to them to move to actually use the methodology and look to other movements actually working on social change, such as equality for atheists/skeptics (different from skeptical education and certainly not a skeptic movement but an equality movement), evolution in schools, and testing the paranormal. I don't think any of these or many other things is part of a skeptic movement, but are their own seperate goals.

 

[athon]

Why is it so important to skeptics that their collective endeavors not be called a movement?

I don't think it's that skeptics are in denial or resist being a called a movement, as much as many of us prefer accuracy in language. It's somewhat like calling any collective of friends who meet once a week for coffee and a chat an 'organisation'. You could probably define them as one if you took into account their goals and their motivations, but it's a stretched definition.

Movement is the same. I would love there to be more momentum and a greater focus on how to go about changing society amongst skeptic groups. I'd love for it to be a movement. But I'm not going to prematurely pat ourselves on the back before it really is one.

Athon