• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

re: "skeptical movement"

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
re: "skeptical movement"

I've received plenty of emails from uninformed people questioning my benign and factual use of the words "skeptical movement".

I'm sure some dogmatically perceive it as an insult because they want to believe that only believers have movements or something, or only non-skeptic clubs and organizations can truly be organized, or even that only relgious things can have leaders, charismatics, or gurus.

In any case, I thought I'd show some places where "skeptical movement" was used by high-profile leaders of the movement (there are many, many examples of more ordinary people in the movement using the words):

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
http://skepdic.com/refuge/getinvolved.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n6_v55/ai_17529302
http://randi.org/hotline/1992/0005.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/091302.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/11-24-2000.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html
http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0053.html (even talks about organization, lol)
http://www.randi.org/jr/100402.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html
http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101002.htm
http://williamcalvin.com/2002/TavrisArticle.htm

Just a small sampling.
 
I have to agree with T'ai Chi. I see nothing wrong with using the term "organized skeptical movement" to refer to the activities of The Skeptics Society, CSICOP, JREF, etc.

I suppose people who assumed they were just posting a few comments on a website were offended by the imputation of de facto membership in said movement.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, I don't think T'ai Chi is entirely wrong, but not entirely correct either.

There are currently skeptical organisations, true, but they don't really operate in the same way as other 'movements' do.

After all, this isn't the JRSF, it's the JREF. The issues that are touched on here are broader than just skepticism - there is politics, science in general, and of course a lively dose of humor.

Skepticism is a way of thinking, a way of analysing information presented to you in a critical way. As such, I don't see places like the JREF forums as a 'movement' of any sort. The forums are run by an educational foundation that highly values skepticism, and as such th majority of the people here are skeptics - but the people on the forums are not 'organised' in any recognisable fashion. We are simply people who have been given a place to chat, debate, and so on - and due to the nature of the forum we are largely skeptics.

Sure, there are events that are organised - TAM, for example, and the occasional dinner or whatnot. But I don't think you can really say that that makes us a movement.

Just my 2¥.

Mobyseven
 
Maybe there are organizations, but not everyone is in CSICOP etc. Many people who consider themselves skeptics, athiests, etc are completely unaffiliated with such groups.

As for a movement. There is not an overall goal or any system of organization for the larger group. I think that certain people, such as Mr. Randi, using such terms does not mean they apply to everyone who is a skeptic, or even everyone on the JREF boards.

I do not dislike the term because I want to be special or somthing, but because it is not a movement to me, skeptic and scientific aproaches are tools to do my job. But I am a member of AAR. hovever, I don't think the American Academy of Religion, or the affiliated Society of Biblical Literature, is a skeptic organization or movement.
 
T'ai Chi said:
I've received plenty of emails from uninformed people questioning my benign and factual use of the words "skeptical movement".
Click to expand...

And here is how you use it yourself: The Chronology of T'ai Chi's "Organized Skeptical Movement" claim

T'ai Chi said:
I'm sure some dogmatically perceive it as an insult
Click to expand...

.....you don't use it as an insult?

T'ai Chi said:
because they want to believe that only believers have movements or something,
Click to expand...

Whatever gave you that idea?

T'ai Chi said:
or only non-skeptic clubs and organizations can truly be organized,
Click to expand...

Whatever gave you that idea?

T'ai Chi said:
or even that only relgious things can have leaders, charismatics, or gurus.
Click to expand...

Whatever gave you that idea?

T'ai Chi said:
In any case, I thought I'd show some places where "skeptical movement" was used by high-profile leaders of the movement (there are many, many examples of more ordinary people in the movement using the words):

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
Click to expand...

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

T'ai Chi said:
Just a small sampling.
Click to expand...

Yet, some of your links are before you yourself have claimed there was such a "skeptical movement".

You are not that comfortable around evidence, are you?
 
I don't think it makes much of a difference. The word 'movement' would require precise defining, and I don't think anybody uses it in this precise way.

I'd understand that any group of people who perceive and encourage the same outcomes of change towards a system would be a 'movement', therefore there could well be considered a skeptical movement. Does everybody skeptical belong to it? No; not all skeptics believe that there needs to be changes to a system (either political, educational, bureaucratic...etc.). But they would be in a minority I believe.

However some individuals use the word movement to imply more than shared desires in change, but suggest overtones of structure and coordination. I rarely address their connotations of such a thing unless they are explicit, lest the person making the suggestion plays games of semantics and slinks back from the notion that they ever meant such a thing. However skeptical groups and organisations rarely demonstrate any real plan or influence of change that goes beyond desire. There is no lobbying, no organised petitions...rarely much more than individuals who might encourage others to follow similar veins of action. This, therefore, is hardly the level movement often implied by those cynical towards skepticism.

In other words, the term movement has no real consequence. It depends on why the individual choose that word in the first place.

Athon
 
Last edited:
It's seldom 'a movement' or 'this movement' or 'that movement' it is always 'the movement'. That's the only problem I have, referecing skepticism like it has a unified or singular agenda when the only accurate way to refer to a movement would be to refer to single or multiple groups out of the many seperate and often disconnected groups that exist.

(Periods are expensive nowadays, one must conserve)
 
It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.
 
Dunstan said:
It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.
Click to expand...


It's the lack of committing statements which I find most cowardly. The veil of pretence over subtle musings...such as with his statements of 'interesting' which does little to fool anybody who has seen more than a couple of his posts.

Tai Chi, if you had something of substance to say, I might have more respect. But standing on the sidelines with one-liner quips that never really tease apart anything carries nothing of merit.

Athon
 
athon said:
It's the lack of committing statements which I find most cowardly. The veil of pretence over subtle musings...such as with his statements of 'interesting' which does little to fool anybody who has seen more than a couple of his posts.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just it. People here showed a grudging respect for Interesting Ian, hammagek (sp?), and Hunster, because they would state their views and defend them (with varying degrees of success).

T'ai, on the other hand, continues to play coy about what he believes. I have to give him credit, in a way. It's not hard to be brave on the internet, but it's a real challenge to be that cowardly.
 
He's not interesting enough to make me sick.



Don't know who said that, but it applies here.
 
And I still disagree that there is a skeptical "movement". There are skeptical organizations which work toward promoting critical thinking, certainly; but there are also charitable organizations which promote charitable giving, and nobody refers to them as "the charity movement".
 
"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.
 
T'ai Chi said:
"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.
Click to expand...

I've posted on topic. Once again, you ignore it in offer of a single line response that doesn't really address anything.

If you're upset by it, demonstrate otherwise. If you're not upset by it, why address a post in which I comment on your behaviour in deference to one which is on topic?

Athon
 
You dont need a sceptical movment, a movement only travels so far and then stops. What you need is a sceptical revolution, so it keeps coming back again and again.
 
I tend to find that phrases like "organised skeptical movement" are used as a euphemism for "cult" akin to calling Scientology an "organised religious movement".

But apart from that tactic, the fact that skeptics organise themselves into groups and try to educate (or whatever) is a complete non-issue.

There are organised skeptcs' groups, as well as there are organised groups with all sorts of differing aims and interests in all walks of life. So what? It's not actually a position we need to defend.

This is just an attempt to create a controversial issue out of nothing and if we try to defend ourselves we just end up playing into the propagandists' hands as by defending ourselves against the accusation it confirms that the issue exists.
 
T'ai Chi said:
"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.
Click to expand...

The fact that you claimed your usage of the term to be benign means that your motives are relavent to the topic. Dunstan and Athon see through your game and are correct to call you on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom