re: "skeptical movement"

[athon]

Because the word activism is not restricted to political activism.

Not strictly, no. But I never said otherwise. I said it carries an implication. Do you know the difference between denotative and connotative meaning?

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

A touch defensive, aren't we? I'm not attacking you, but pointing out where your understanding seems deficient.

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;"

Small point; wiki is a poor choice of reference. It's a great resource to use when you need some place to start understanding something. But it's not looked upon as a good reference when you're after an authority on a topic.

I never said that activism could not be used in reference to a vegetarian trying to convert other members of the public directly. Indeed, I even said it's not technically incorrect to refer to Randi as an activist. I was saying that there is a general tendency to associate political efforts with the term. Just like 'movement' implies more than an educational focus and shared desires in social change.

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.

Actually, I think you're the one being naive. If you want to apply a strict definition, you could say Randi is an activist and not be technically wrong.

Yet to ask somebody to describe the actions and characteristics of an activist (without further clarification) and I can guarentee that they would think of something slightly different to a ranting vego sharing their opinions on a blog. It's this connotative meaning you're conveniently - or naively - ignoring.

Athon

 

[ReligionStudent]

I think the main point to me is still the failure to show that there is some sort of organized movement and not just many people who happen to use scientific and skeptical methods to different ends.

 

[blutoski]

I think the main point to me is still the failure to show that there is some sort of organized movement and not just many people who happen to use scientific and skeptical methods to different ends.

My take-away is the curious observation that after so many clear examples are given, even one person can possibly still hold this view.





Skepticism is obviously a movement. It's so self-evident that I don't know what more to say.

There is a collection of people who share the vision of a world where objectivity, reasoning, and the naturalistic worldview replace much of the theological and superstitious status quo - we take action to achieve this political change. That some take more action than others does not eliminate the existence of the movement. Movements are like that.

We have a lobbyist in Washington, representatives in important government positions, millions of dollars of buildings and other facilities, journals, membership rosters who usually pay dues, lists of goals and objectives dedicated to change.




The only explanations for denying this that I can think of are:

• people will bite off their nose to spite their face as long as it doesn't make them appear to agree with T'ai Ch'i. Or are too stubborn to publicly reverse an obviously ridiculous position.
• there is a component of skepticism that draws from iconoclasts and proud independent thinkers. These people hate admitting that just like everybody else, their ideas are formed by exposure to the thoughts of others. Almost nobody's thoughts are truly their own.
• there is a component of skepticism that draws from people who identify as non-joiners (think Groucho Marx) who can't face the possibility that non-joiners can found a club of their own.

 

[ReligionStudent]

No, I simply think that
A) there is not one single movement, but many different groups with different goals and methods

B) not everyone is in these groups. I associate here socialy, not not for some larger goal. I am interested in people like Randi etc, because I think that there is reason behind skepticism

C) Skepticism is a method seperate from goals that these groups might have.
These goals may be educationa bout skepticism, but that certainly does not contain everyone here, as many statements made in this thread have.

 

[sackett]

Tai Chi is right: The skeptical movement has been clandestinely organized for some time. We meet in beer-cellars and have roaring, table-thumping agreements. We all wear brown shirts and these really neat-looking armbands. We’ve tried drilling in the city park, but as you know, Aryans don’t submit easily to discipline, and we concentrate more on Direct Action.

Skeptics, not Aryans. My slip, sorry. Soon we’ll take back the streets. Soon the creduloid sub-men will feel the wrath of a vengeful race! Thinkers, awake!

 

[clerihew80]

Here:
Originally Posted by clerihew80
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.

Yes, and exactly where does this imply that debunking and skepticism are synonyms?

 

[Moochie]

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

Because there bloody well isn't one.

M.

 

[clerihew80]

Do you know the difference between denotative and connotative meaning?

Indeed, I do. But I wasn't under the impression that the word "activism" automatically connoted political activism. My naivete, you see.

I'm not attacking you, but pointing out where your understanding seems deficient.

No, but you're being quite patronizing.

(Wiki) is a great resource to use when you need some place to start understanding something.

Which is how I used it.

Yet to ask somebody to describe the actions and characteristics of an activist (without further clarification) and I can guarentee that they would think of something slightly different to a ranting vego sharing their opinions on a blog. It's this connotative meaning you're conveniently - or naively - ignoring.

But I never used the word "activist" to refer to someone merely ranting on a blog. I used it to refer to James Randi.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think it would be nice if there was an organized skeptic movement.

 

[CFLarsen]

If this "skeptical movement" is so "organized", it must be easy to list all those who are "organized" in it.

Otherwise, where's the "organized" part?

 

[Moochie]

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?

Are you hard of thinking?

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I belong to a PC user group that's affiliated with similar groups all over the world. If you referred to the members of these groups as belonging to an "organized PC movement" they'd quite rightly think you a sandwich short of a picnic.

M.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Are you hard of thinking?

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I belong to a PC user group that's affiliated with similar groups all over the world. If you referred to the members of these groups as belonging to an "organized PC movement" they'd quite rightly think you a sandwich short of a picnic. It's the same for people of a skeptical bent.

M.

Do skeptics come together to effect social or political change or to reinforce their beliefs (albeit supported by evidence) about various topics?

If so, they represent a social movement. It may not be centralized and there may be many organizations that do not adhere identical sets of beliefs, but such entities are inherently social in nature as they consist of more than one person and, because each group has a common cause, at least within that group, they constitute movements. In short, while there in no single "organized skeptical movement", each skeptical organization represent a manifestation of a skeptical movement.

What makes skeptics so unlike other people that groups of skeptics cannot be studied by sociology?

 

[CFLarsen]

What makes skeptics so unlike other people that groups of skeptics cannot be studied by sociology?

Did anyone claim this?

 

[Moochie]

Do skeptics come together to effect social or political change or to reinforce their beliefs (albeit supported by evidence) about various topics?

If so, they represent a social movement. It may not be centralized and there may be many organizations that do not adhere identical sets of beliefs, but such entities are inherently social in nature as they consist of more than one person and, because each group has a common cause, at least within that group, they constitute movements. In short, while there in no single "organized skeptical movement", each skeptical organization represent a manifestation of a skeptical movement.

What makes skeptics so unlike other people that groups of skeptics cannot be studied by sociology?

Ah, now I get it. I'm an organized skeptical movement!

M.

 

[ReligionStudent]

apparently whoever organized the skeptic movements did about as good a job as whoever intelligently designed the world (if only he had thought about that whole cancer think a little longer).

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ah, now I get it. I'm an organized skeptical movement!

M.

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. 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.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So I'm wondering, are Randi and Shermer wrong when they refer to it as a skeptical movement?

Where's your (anyone?) evidence?

 

[clerihew80]

So I'm wondering, are Randi and Shermer wrong when they refer to it as a skeptical movement?

No, but the people in this thread will sleep with their own mothers before they'll concede a point to you.

 

[CFLarsen]

So I'm wondering, are Randi and Shermer wrong when they refer to it as a skeptical movement?

Where do they refer to an organized skeptical movement?

If this skeptical movement you speak of is so organized, who exactly are in it? It should be easy, since it is so organized.

Where's your (anyone?) evidence?

Speaking of which: Where is your evidence that Shermer refers to a skeptical movement (organized or not) in this article you linked to?

 

[ReligionStudent]

No, but the people in this thread will sleep with their own mothers before they'll concede a point to you.

I have specifically stated that some believe there is a movement, but that it is not as inclusive as those posting to this thread seem to think, and one's presence on this board or reading skeptic magazine does not make one part of this movement.