re: "skeptical movement"

[Moochie]

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

Athon

Even more hilarious is the notion of "leaders" of this "movement."

When one considers who it is that is using these terms to describe people of a skeptical bent, it all falls into place.

M.

 

[Moochie]

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.

Excellent post, Dunstan, and thanks for the link. We do have our share of such trolls here: Mr. Randi/Mr. Dawkins alienate believers in woo by their gruff manner; skeptics are too closed minded, therefore no one takes them seriously; the skeptical movement/organization/evil cabal is coming for your daughters, and so on.

Slapping them around occasionally is an amusing pastime. No doubt about that at all.

M.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

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, thank you for putting a name on, and defining, T'ai Chi's behavior.

T'ai Chi, what's it like to be part of the "organized concern troll movement"?

 

[wahrheit]

Even more hilarious is the notion of "leaders" of this "movement."

Plus the "gurus" of The Movement^TM T'ai Chi mentions in his opening post. Just plain dumb.

ETA: I'd like to second the usage of the term "troll" when talking about opening posts like this and/or T'ai Chi. He wants it this way, it seems.

 

[jon]

I'd also note that in the OP Tai Chi claims that "believers have movements", whereas he seems to want to talk about a sceptical movement (singular). Wouldn't it be better to argue that there are lots of sceptical movements and movements which are sceptical: I don't think talking about a (singular) sceptical movement is particularly helpful.

For example, I'm involved in running a blog which takes a sceptical look at certain health/nutrition claims. I've been lucky to have quite a few people offer to help out with this - some would probably describe themselves as sceptical, others are interested in this area for other reasons. So you get a website that is sceptical, and that several sceptics have helped with, but which isn't (entirely) part of a sceptical movement.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

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.

Athon, Dunstan, those are two posts I sincerely wish that I had written. Kudo to you.

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

T'ai Chi, Athon and Dunstan have raised valid points. It is time for you to step up to the plate and address said points. Your one line answer does not do this.

 

[strathmeyer]

Is a skeptical movement like a ghost poo?

 

[blutoski]

There is no lobbying, no organised petitions...

I'm not sure if that's true. CFI has a fulltime lobbyist in Washington, and petitions to educational boards organized by Skeptical organizations are common. Especially wrt the teaching of creationism.

 

[Yeah_Right]

T'ai Chi, and if there are skeptical organizations, so what?

 

[clerihew80]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. An "organized movement" isn't necessarily a bad thing. The civil rights movement, for example, was undoubtedly a good thing.

there are also charitable organizations which promote charitable giving, and nobody refers to them as "the charity movement".

Well, "charity" is a much more inclusive term than "skepticism." Now, if a subset of those charities works towards, say, AIDS awareness, you could say there's an "AIDS awareness movement."

 

[ReligionStudent]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. An "organized movement" isn't necessarily a bad thing. The civil rights movement, for example, was undoubtedly a good thing.


Well, "charity" is a much more inclusive term than "skepticism." Now, if a subset of those charities works towards, say, AIDS awareness, you could say there's an "AIDS awareness movement."

Yes, but I think the issue is the blanket inclusion of all skepticly minded individuals or all posters on this board, or some other arbitrary group as being in a large skeptical movement. I don't feal I am, I am just a skeptic, just like I am a right handed individual, that does not mean I am in a right handed movement.


DOWN WITH LEFTIES

 

[clerihew80]

Yes, but I think the issue is the blanket inclusion of all skepticly minded individuals or all posters on this board, or some other arbitrary group as being in a large skeptical movement. I don't feal I am, I am just a skeptic, just like I am a right handed individual, that does not mean I am in a right handed movement.

Right-handedness is more arbitrary than skepticism. But say there were right-handed groups whose purpose was to educate the public about the right-handed way of thinking (whatever that is!). Say these groups maintained a media presence, published magazines, gave speeches and lectures, organized social events, were openly critical of left-handers and their agenda, and had websites. This would constitute a Right-handed movement, I should say. Now, if you were visiting these websites, reading the magazines, keeping up with the latest news, proudly proclaiming your right-handedness, communicating with/debating fellow right-handers in online forums etc. - wouldn't that make you at least a supporter of the movement?

 

[ReligionStudent]

Right-handedness is more arbitrary than skepticism. But say there were right-handed groups whose purpose was to educate the public about the right-handed way of thinking (whatever that is!). Say these groups maintained a media presence, published magazines, gave speeches and lectures, organized social events, were openly critical of left-handers and their agenda, and had websites. This would constitute a Right-handed movement, I should say. Now, if you were visiting these websites, reading the magazines, keeping up with the latest news, proudly proclaiming your right-handedness, communicating with/debating fellow right-handers in online forums etc. - wouldn't that make you at least a supporter of the movement?

Well, I study at a seminary, read religious publications, learn languages to read religious books, take part in debate and publications, attend conferences, but I am not part of any religious movement.

 

[clerihew80]

Well, I study at a seminary, read religious publications, learn languages to read religious books, take part in debate and publications, attend conferences, but I am not part of any religious movement.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "member," then. Based on your activities, someone else might consider you part of a religious movement, even if you don't.

We're not used to thinking of well-established religions (I'm assuming you're at a Christian seminary) as movements, but really, if they're trying to grow and recruit new members and increase their presence, as most denominations are, they are essentially still movements.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I suppose it depends on how one defines "member," then. Based on your activities, someone else might consider you part of a religious movement, even if you don't.

We're not used to thinking of well-established religions (I'm assuming you're at a Christian seminary) as movements, but really, if they're trying to grow and recruit new members and increase their presence, as most denominations are, they are essentially still movements.

Both Christian and Jewish seminaries, but I doubt anyone would call an atheist part of a religious movement.

 

[clerihew80]

Both Christian and Jewish seminaries, but I doubt anyone would call an atheist part of a religious movement.

Ah, see, I suspected you weren't really religious but you didn't make that clear. Now, obviously, if you don't subscribe to the movement's core beliefs or better yet are actually opposed to them, you can't be a member of that particular movement. But I'm assuming you do subscribe to the principle tenets of skepticism, otherwise you wouldn't call yourself a skeptic. So, really, your attendance at seminary is a completely different situation from your skepticism. You're active within what I'm calling the Skeptical movement because you believe in the philosophy or way of thinking about evidence or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure why you're connected with Christian and Jewish seminaries, but it must be for different reasons. I still see no reason why I shouldn't call you a supporter, and thus a peripheral member at the very least, of the Skeptical movement.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Ah, see, I suspected you weren't really religious but you didn't make that clear. Now, obviously, if you don't subscribe to the movement's core beliefs or better yet are actually opposed to them, you can't be a member of that particular movement. But I'm assuming you do subscribe to the principle tenets of skepticism, otherwise you wouldn't call yourself a skeptic. So, really, your attendance at seminary is a completely different situation from your skepticism. You're active within what I'm calling the Skeptical movement because you believe in the philosophy or way of thinking about evidence or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure why you're connected with Christian and Jewish seminaries, but it must be for different reasons. I still see no reason why I shouldn't call you a supporter, and thus a peripheral member at the very least, of the Skeptical movement.

tennents of skepticism? This is something of my point, skepticism simply a method or at the very most a methodology, not a world view. I think the movement associated with it is different than actual skepticism, which may just be an outlook different people have in common. The goals of so called skeptic movement might include teaching about skepticism or working towards politics based on skeptical and scientific methods, but those goals are different than the actual simple methogalogical use of skepticism.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it so important that there not be an "organized skeptical movement"?

 

[ReligionStudent]

well there can be one, I simply think that defining every skeptically minded individual or everyone that posts on JREF boards or reads skeptic magazines etc as a member is too broad, and that that people define themselves as members, and not their actions/beliefs.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Why is it so important that there not be an "organized skeptical movement"?

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.