re: "skeptical movement"

[Civilized Worm]

There are plenty of sceptical organisations and I support them wholeheartedly, but scepticism itself is really more of a philosophy or world view than a movement.

 

[clerihew80]

Where do they refer to an organized skeptical movement?

I think the "organized" part is implicit. It may not be the type of centralized organization that Tai Chi is thinking of, however.

 

[clerihew80]

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.

OK, I'll accept that you don't consider yourself part of a Skeptical movement. I'd just like to say that I don't belong to any Skeptical organizations. The extent of my involvement in this alleged movement is, like yours, limited to visiting these websites and reading the magazines, and yet I'm wholly in favor of a Skeptical movement. If such a movement doesn't already exist, then somebody should start one.

 

[ReligionStudent]

OK, I'll accept that you don't consider yourself part of a Skeptical movement. I'd just like to say that I don't belong to any Skeptical organizations. The extent of my involvement in this alleged movement is, like yours, limited to visiting these websites and reading the magazines, and yet I'm wholly in favor of a Skeptical movement. If such a movement doesn't already exist, then somebody should start one.

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

 

[blutoski]

We meet in beer-cellars and have roaring, table-thumping agreements.

Skeptics In The Pub have been meeting in beer cellars for twenty years. According to the few audiorecorded sessions available on the Australian Skeptics' website, I'd say that yes, there are quite a few table-thumping agreements.

Are you implying that skeptics should not consider themselves a movement, because all 'movements' are bad by definition?

I'm proud to consider myself part of a skeptical movement. I consider it a push for change up with abolition and women's suffrage. These movements were also composed of a mix of formal and informal - or even completely independent - participants. But they shared a commom philosophical goal of change for human betterment.

You don't have to be part of the movement. But, speaking for those of us who are: please get out of our way.

 

[strathmeyer]

Perhaps some are just surprised by the ability of people who disagree with them to seemingly amass around him.

Reading blutoski's posts reminds me of people I used to bar sit with. This was long before I ever heard of the JREF or skepticism, yet I'm sure everyone would call them skeptics. Were we an organized movement?

 

[blutoski]

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

But to clarify: are you saying now that your complaint is that 'skeptical movement' should be 'skeptical movements'?

That's quibbling, I think. There's lumpers and splitters who evaluate any organization, but I'm willing to say that there are sufficient shared values for skeptics to self-identify with. Mostly the promotion of a naturalistic worldview instead of a supernatural one, and a preference for reason over intuition.

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

Hello, but the question isn't "is ReligionStudent part of a skeptical movement?" I'm not part of the holocaust denial movement. That doesn't make it disappear.

The debate at hand is about whether such participation exists to be called a movement. I would say pretty obviously, yes.

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.

? I'm having trouble parsing that last sentence.

I'm particularly intrigued about how you might explain that the Skeptics Society, Australian Skeptics, UK Skeptics, BC Skeptics &c could possibly have goals that don't align with skepticism.

 

[blutoski]

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).

Mind: some of us will take that personally.

Barry Beyerstein is the president of the BCSkeptics, and a co-founder of CSI (nee CSICOP). He has worked his ass off for decades fighting crooks and liars across the world.



Organizing skeptics is a bit like herding cats, because they come from different political and religious backgrounds, and fight among themselves over things that are not skepticism. They are also proud of their independent thinking, and generally object to toeing party lines, and having obligations to a group.

I also have a personal belief that the movement disproportionately attracts certain disorders such as OCPD.

 

[athon]

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

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/activist

It's your reaction to being challenged on this point which is unfortunate. Not your misunderstanding.

No, but you're being quite patronizing.

I tend to do that when people react arrogantly to being challenged. Rather than remaining open to the possibility that you're wrong (or arguing successfully why you're not), you respond rather defensively.

Which is how I used it.

Excellent. So you then concede that wiki is a weak authority to argue from.

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

No, but you made a comparison between Randi and vegetarians who communicate their beliefs without necessarily lobbying for government change. I was following your analogy.

Athon

 

[ReligionStudent]

My issue is not with skeptic organizations, they exist. My issue is with various comments that have been made to the effect that there is a single large skeptic movement.
Some points that have been made as to how to put people into such a movement are reading Skeptic etc, posting on these forums, being an atheist, reading/respecting Randi/Shermer/other well known skeptics, etc. I think that one can do any or all of these and not be part of some skeptic movement.

Even self-identifying as a skeptic does not make one part of some skeptic movement, since this does not state that they are making movements towards any goals, this simply identifies part of ones outlook or methodology.

My issue is with the idea of this one skeptic movement that seems to incorperate everyone who does or says anything even remotely linking them to skeptical thinking.

My issue is not with seperate individual groups wiht their own goals and methods.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm thinking if the skeptical movement was organized, we'd make a bigger difference. The problem is, with skeptics, that most of us are individual thinkers and hard to "organize" into a common philosophy of what's "skeptical." When it comes to the paranormal, it's rather cohesive, but when it comes to social issues (politics) we tend to seperate into our own groups. In otherwords, unlike religious and political clubs, we really don't have any dogma to hold us together as an organized movement.

 

[clerihew80]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/activist

It's your reaction to being challenged on this point which is unfortunate. Not your misunderstanding.

But I didn't misunderstand anything. You're the one having trouble. And that link you provided defines activist as " A proponent or practitioner of activism" - which is a tad tautological. It only cites "political activists" as an example of a type of activism, so what's the point of pasting it?

I tend to do that when people react arrogantly to being challenged. Rather than remaining open to the possibility that you're wrong (or arguing successfully why you're not), you respond rather defensively.

I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It was wrong of me to assert, for instance, that ReligionStudent is a peripheral member of the Skeptical movement because he supports James Randi and is a member of this forum. He protested, and I've accepted his disavowal.

I didn't react arrogantly, I reacted irritatedly to your accusations of naivete and your presumptuousness in attempting to give me an impromptu semantics lecture.

Excellent. So you then concede that wiki is a weak authority to argue from.

Well I would concede that, if I had ever suggested that wiki was a strong authority. I cited those passages as tentative definitions of the concepts that I was referring to so we could all get on the same page. You were perfectly free to accept or reject the definitions on their own merits, rather than because of their source. Instead you chose to digress into a discussion on the reliability of Wikipedia. Don't you think I'm aware of the problematic nature of that particular site? Why is it that every time you cite Wiki, someone feels like they have to explain to you that it's not the be-all and end-all of references, as if you're a complete ****ing internet novice? Can't we just agree that it's an acceptable place to go to get common definitions of certain concepts?

No, but you made a comparison between Randi and vegetarians who communicate their beliefs without necessarily lobbying for government change. I was following your analogy.

Well, I should think it would be difficult to follow an analogy I never made!
I posted a quote which read: "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." All I was saying was that one doesn't have to call for governmental policy change to be considered an activist. I never made any comparison between Randi and vegetarians, other than that I consider them both to be types of activists. And the activist vegetarians I was talking about are quite different from your "vego ranting on a blog."

 

[athon]

But I didn't misunderstand anything. You're the one having trouble. And that link you provided defines activist as " A proponent or practitioner of activism" - which is a tad tautological. It only cites "political activists" as an example of a type of activism, so what's the point of pasting it?

I honestly don't see the issue. It was to demonstrate that often when the word activist is used, it carries implications of engaging in political debate and active social change to a greater extent than purely educational exercises. If I hear 'activist', I associate certain actions with that.

I'm not denying the pure denotative meaning which says technically you're correct. However, it is naive to think that such a word carries no further connotation.

I didn't react arrogantly, I reacted irritatedly to your accusations of naivete and your presumptuousness in attempting to give me an impromptu semantics lecture.

From what you were saying, it seemed you did not understand how the word activist could carry implications beyond what is demonstrated by the likes of the JREF. It either shows you don't understand connotative meaning, don't understand that the terms activist and movement carry implications of organisation and political interaction, or are intentionally ignoring it.

If having that pointed out to you irritates you, you're going to have a difficult time discussing here, as often people will demonstrate where you've neglected to take certain definitions into account.

Well I would concede that if I had ever suggested that wiki was a strong authority. I cited those passages as tentative definitions of the concepts that I was referring to so we could all get on the same page. You were perfectly free to accept or reject the definitions on their own merits, rather than because of their source. Instead you chose to digress into a discussion on the reliability of Wikipedia. Don't you think I'm aware of the problematic nature of that particular site? Why is it that every time you cite Wiki, someone feels like they have to explain to you that it's not the be-all and end-all of references, as if you're a complete ****ing internet novice? Can't we just agree that it's an acceptable place to go to get common definitions of certain concepts?

Because citing wiki as a source carries little weight. It's useful as a quick way of describing something, but it adds little when used as an authoritative back-up. You were using it to demonstrate a source that agrees with you, not using it as a means to explain something I didn't know about.

But, fine. I'll drop that argument since it has no real place in this discussion.

Well, I should think it would be difficult to follow an analogy I never made!
I posted a quote which read: "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." All I was saying was that one doesn't have to call for governmental policy change to be considered an activist. I never made any comparison between Randi and vegetarians, other than that I consider them both to be types of activists. And the activist vegetarians I was talking about are quite different from your "vego ranting on a blog."

Looks like an analogy to me. You're comparing Randi's lack of political involvement with that of a vegetarian's or a feminist's or a religious person's and using that quote to demonstrate that they all could be referred to as activists. I followed that comparison. And how does the ranting on a blog differ in any significant way to a vegetarian trying to persuade people to change their behaviour (for purposes of this argument?).

I think you're just upset that your view has been questioned and now you're arguing for the sake of it.

Athon

 

[clerihew80]

I'm not denying the pure denotative meaning which says technically you're correct. However, it is naive to think that such a word carries no further connotation.

I don't think that.

From what you were saying, it seemed you did not understand how the word activist could carry implications beyond what is demonstrated by the likes of the JREF.

Wrong.

It either shows you don't understand connotative meaning, don't understand that the terms activist and movement carry implications of organisation and political interaction, or are intentionally ignoring it.

No, no and no.

If having that pointed out to you irritates you, you're going to have a difficult time discussing here, as often people will demonstrate where you've neglected to take certain definitions into account.

I'll take my chances.

Because citing wiki as a source carries little weight. It's useful as a quick way of describing something,

Which is how I used it.

but it adds little when used as an authoritative back-up.

That's not how I used it.

You were using it to demonstrate a source that agrees with you,

Yes...and?

But, fine. I'll drop that argument since it has no real place in this discussion.

Praise the lord.

And how does the ranting on a blog differ in any significant way to a vegetarian trying to persuade people to change their behaviour (for purposes of this argument?).

I think this is the most absurd question I've ever been asked in a forum! What do you mean "how do they differ"?!

I think you're just upset that your view has been questioned and now you're arguing for the sake of it.

Yawn...

 

[mijopaalmc]

Did anyone claim this?

Well, basically that sentiment is encapsulated in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

There is no dearth of skeptical organizations which are groups of like-minded people who have come together to promote skepticism, as can be discerned by visiting their websites and reading their mission statements. While they don't all necessarily have explicitly political goals (the New England Skeptical Society being an exception), most them have an educational element and therefore enter the political and legal arena when education becomes politicized and the judicial system is used as a weapon against skepticism and critical thought.

I understand that there are people who would denounce skepticism for having an associated social movement, but to deny that there is a collection of skeptical movements ignores the sociological definition of a social movement in order to appease nay-sayers who shouldn't hold sway over how skeptics think in the first place.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think the "organized" part is implicit. It may not be the type of centralized organization that Tai Chi is thinking of, however.

T'a Chi uses it explicitly.

Well, basically that sentiment is encapsulated in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

There's a difference between skeptical groups and a skeptical movement.

 

[athon]

I don't think that.

Let's go back over this.

You claim that Randi is an 'activist skeptic'. It was disputed that Randi's actions suit the term 'activist'. You then used Wikipedia to give the definition of this term, which looked to me as if you were using wiki as an authority. You claim you weren't, that you were clarifying, so fine. It's not worth nit-picking that.

Yet still in dispute is the fact that the term activist gives an accurate impression of Randi's activities. You continue to feel it is an accurate term, do you not? In spite of the fact that the connotations of activist imply more of an organised, political interaction which endeavours to change society directly rather than through education.

Therefore, you either disagree that activist carries an overt political connotation, raising images of petitions, protests and lobbying (active social changes) rather than educational lectures and public appearances (passive social changes)... or you agree with that, and feel Randi's behaviour is more active than passive.

If you believe the former, you're naive as to the implications of the term 'activism'. If the latter, I think you're incorreclty describing educational lectures and media appearances as an active form of social and political change.

I think this is the most absurd question I've ever been asked in a forum! What do you mean "how do they differ"?!

In the context of this discussion, comparing active versus passive social change, how do two forms of direct public communication ultimately differ? They are both passive forms of social change. How is that difficult?

Yawn...

Oh, I apologise; I thought you were interested in representing your viewpoint rather than just posturing for the sake of saving face in an argument.

Feel free to ignore my views if they're too challenging.

Athon

 

[zooterkin]

Perhaps the cause of this is that TC, and others, find they are being met with the same arguments against their theories from a variety of apparently unconnected respondents. Of course, the reason for this is that the people responding are merely applying scepticism, scientific knowledge and the scientific method, not some organised movement telling them what to say. However, from the point of view of some of the posters here (and I haven't spent the time to identify exactly which set of nonsense CT subscribes to, to say if he would fall into this group), what most of us here would call the conventional approach is just one of many to choose from, with most of the others held by a identifiable group of adherents who are organised to a greater or lesser degree. Their worldview is perhaps such that a set of beliefs is associated with a group, rather than being independently based on scientific research.

 

[clerihew80]

Athon:

OK, in the interest of clearing the air let's go back to the beginning. I didn't actually use the word "activist" initially. I used the term "activist skeptic," the definition of which - the definition that I'm operating with - is summed up as follows:

"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..."

Now, the way I see it you can either (A) agree that James Randi meets the criteria for an activist skeptic, (B) deny that he meets the criteria, or (C) dispute the definition that I've given. Those are your three options. Don't meander off into discussions of semantic ambiguity, or doubts as to the reliability of Wikipedia, or insinuations about my ignorance or callowness or what have you. Stick to the topic.

If you decide that James Randi can accurately be described as an activist skeptic, then what's the problem with referring to him more generally as an activist? I'm not really concerned with the varying connotations that this word might have for different people - that's entirely subjective and irrelevant. As I've said, I don't automatically think of "organized, political interaction" when I hear the word activist - so why should I (or you) assume that everyone else would?

 

[athon]

Now, the way I see it you can either (A) agree that James Randi meets the criteria for an activist skeptic, (B) deny that he meets the criteria, or (C) dispute the definition that I've given. Those are your three options. Don't meander off into discussions of semantic ambiguity, or the reliability of Wikipedia, or insinuations about my ignorance or callowness or what have you. Stick to the topic.

Go back and reread my posts. Strictly defined as such, I can't argue that Randi is not an activist. And if one wants to explicitly create a term such as 'activist skeptic', define it, and apply it to Randi, then they are welcome to. I've never come across the term before, to be honest, and I've been involved with skepticism and critical thinking in education for quite some time.

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). Hence to clarify, you'd need to say 'Randi is an activist, but not an activist who actively campaigns politicans or petitions for changes in law or governance'.

As I've said, I don't automatically think of "organized, political interaction" when I hear the word activist - so why should I (or you) assume that everyone else would?

You're right. I did a quick poll before around the staff room, asking what came to mind when I said activism, and I got back words such as 'protest', 'lobbying', the names of several political campaigners for civil rights in this country...but then, that's just the staff room. There's an insinuation here in this thread that the terms 'movement' and 'activism' seems to require more than passive education and forum discussions...but that's just this forum. I can point out several definitions that seem to imply or lead to political associations...but then, as you said, they're not strict definitions.

In the end, you might be correct, and to the majority of the population the term 'activism' carries no insinuation that such a thing has to do with 'actively' pushing for social change, but can include any form of action where one desires some form of difference.

If that's your stance, you're welcome to it. In my experience, however, I feel you're wrong.

Athon

ETA: some definitions, for the hell of it -

http://www.answers.com/topic/activism

The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

Lectures and educational programs are not typically seen as 'direct, often confrontational'. His addressing of particular woos might be, but I wouldn't call them a 'cause'.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861583522/activism.html

vigorous action: vigorous and sometimes aggressive action in pursuing a political or social end

Again, demonstrating that it is vigorous and aggressive, insinuating doing more than talks and lectures. To me, this implies actively going out and protesting, lobbying, petitioning, addressing those who can change things themselves... rather than educating and explaining to the people. Randi himself might be a rather aggressive speaker, but I don't feel his actions themselves are all that aggressive by nature.

But then, again, this is just me.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=activistic

vigorous action: vigorous and sometimes aggressive action in pursuing a political or social end

There's that 'vigorous action' again. 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. Aggressive, again, implies pushing actively for change.

Then again, maybe it is just me who sees 'activism' this way.