re: "skeptical movement"

[Dunstan]

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.

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[athon]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

Well put, and I agree completely.

Athon

 

[ReligionStudent]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

That is a good point/statment of issue.

 

[mijopaalmc]

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.

I'm sorry that you think that way, but just because you think things are a certain way doesn't make them so. I have tried to demonstrate to you through empirical evidence of what skeptics say about themselves in their own words that there is a set of beliefs and goals that transcends individual skeptical organizations. I don't know why you continue to reject it.

Probably one aspect that unites all of the groups together, at least philosophically, is their desire to effect change through education:

Through education, research, publishing, and social services, it seeks to present affirmative alternatives based on scientific naturalism.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. It also promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues. To carry out these objectives the Committee[.]

To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

To educate the public about the principles and necessity of skepticism and critical thinking in our society.
[...]
To promote higher standards of education, especially in the areas of science and critical thinking skills.

The Society is dedicated to educating the public about controversial claims. We maintain a speaker’s bureau, a telephone referral service, and this website so that schools, the press, and the general public can access our information. We tirelessly lend our scientific viewpoint to media coverage of a wide range of issues. Check out our list of media appearances.

While Australian Skeptics does not have an explicitly educational provision in their mission statement, it do provide educational or informational resources like the other skeptical organizations cited:

Publishing a periodical, the Skeptic and distributing relevant information.
Publishing articles, monographs and books that examine claims of the paranormal.
Maintaining a library.
Preparing a bibliography of relevant published material.

Prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims
Convenes conferences and meetings
Publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal

To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.

[P]roviding reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

To gather and disseminate information of interest to skeptics.

To further our own learning, as well as the public’s, the Skeptics Society conducts investigations and research into controversial claims. We then make our articles available in our online reading room.

Similar comparisons can be made for other points in the mission statements. Needless to say skeptical organizations and societies, while not branches of some nefarious Skeptical Movement, do have common beliefs, goals, and methods which makes them manifestations of a decentralized social movement based on skepticism. This that of course not ever skeptic is involved in a skeptical movement. I'm not trying to accuse (as I think the so-appropriately named quasi-concern troll) is that of trying to perpetuate "Skeptical Orthodoxy" without regard to real knowledge much like fundamentalism in religion does. Rather, I'm just trying to point out that constantly denying the existence of skeptical movements (or movements based on skepticism, or whatever you want to call them) runs contrary to the well-accepted and well-observed phenomenon of social movements being the collective action of individuals who share common beliefs and goals. I therefore wonder if there is some advantage to skeptics in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

 

[noblecaboose]

The nature of the supposed skeptical "organization" seems to be as elusive as the New-Agers' definition of "energy."

 

[mijopaalmc]

The nature of the supposed skeptical "organization" seems to be as elusive as the New-Agers' definition of "energy."

Rather (I imagine) like the nature of Lutheranism before the Augsburg Confession and Anabaptism before the Schleitheim Confession. Just because the movement doesn't have an official declaration of what it is and isn't doesn't mean that there isn't a movement.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I like the poster way back who said it was joining the bowel movement. Here in NY we have the CSI, who are way different from the New York Area Skeptics, who refuse to touch a religious discussion with a 3 meter pole. Except for weeping icons.
So some go after the stupidity they want to target, and others. others.
And I don't give a rodent's rectum about we call it.

 

[Folly]

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

I like the answers already, but I think there's a slightly different angle too.

My personal opinion is that a large part of the reason it often gets a negative response is because it's often brought up in the context of certain "itneresting" individuals ascribing some negative trait (often imaginary) to the skeptical movement, with the implication that most skeptics have this flaw. Not naming names, or anything. It's easier to slander a non-existent group than a real person.

Sure, there's a skeptical movement. Of course it has a zillion different goals, and is composed of thousands of groups which have a nodding acquaintance at best, so talking of "the skeptical movement" is of limited utility at best (as opposed to talking about a more concrete and cohesive group.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

I like the answers already, but I think there's a slightly different angle too.

My personal opinion is that a large part of the reason it often gets a negative response is because it's often brought up in the context of certain "itneresting" individuals ascribing some negative trait (often imaginary) to the skeptical movement, with the implication that most skeptics have this flaw. Not naming names, or anything. It's easier to slander a non-existent group than a real person.

Sure, there's a skeptical movement. Of course it has a zillion different goals, and is composed of thousands of groups which have a nodding acquaintance at best, so talking of "the skeptical movement" is of limited utility at best (as opposed to talking about a more concrete and cohesive group.)

I completely agree with your first and second paragraphs in letter and your third in spirit. It has never been my contention that there is a "One, Holy, and Apostolic Skeptical Movement", or, as it is more often called the "Organized Skeptical Movement". However, I find the seeming cognitive disconnect between there being social groupings of skeptics drawn together by their skepticism and there being social movements based on skepticism (which is what I mean by "skeptical movements") very frustrating. I have given the examples of the Civil Rights Movement and the Reformation as vast social movements that resemble that set of all skeptical movements in that many disparate societies and organization that were conceptually related by a set of common goals.

However, there have been many movements throughout human history. Looking just within Christianity, which itself was collection of social movements conceptually untied by their belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before it received the official sanction of the Roman Empire, there are a multitude social movements the individual communities of which were conceptually united by shared goals but that did not necessarily agree on details of how to achieve them. Early hermetic and monastic movements strove to achieve salvation by renouncing worldly pleasures. The Reformation, the Restoration, and the Great Awakenings were all movements aimed at reforming, restoring, or revive the Church to its former glory and purity. However, no-one would claim that since there were many hermits and monastic communities with differing opinions on how best to achieve salvation, hermeticism or monasticism did not exist. Similarly, no-one would claim that, because the Reformation, the Restoration, and the Great Awakenings gave rise to many feuding denominations, those events never happened. Nonetheless, it seems that self-identified skeptics seem to be claiming just that about the relationship that individual skeptical societies and organizations bear to the abstracted "skeptical movement": since these skeptical societies and organizations are disparate in some of their goals, a decentralized movement of autocephalous skeptical societies and organization does not exist.

How does the Protestantism of Luther, Calvin, Sattler, et alia and their goal to reform the Catholic Church differ so much from the skepticism of Randi, Dawkins, Shermer, et alia and their goal to improve society through critical thinking and scientific research that the former constituted the Reformation and the latter doesn't constitute a skeptical movement (or skeptical movements)?

 

[ReligionStudent]

I'm sorry that you think that way, but just because you think things are a certain way doesn't make them so. I have tried to demonstrate to you through empirical evidence of what skeptics say about themselves in their own words that there is a set of beliefs and goals that transcends individual skeptical organizations. I don't know why you continue to reject it.

Probably one aspect that unites all of the groups together, at least philosophically, is their desire to effect change through education:

While Australian Skeptics does not have an explicitly educational provision in their mission statement, it do provide educational or informational resources like the other skeptical organizations cited:

Similar comparisons can be made for other points in the mission statements. Needless to say skeptical organizations and societies, while not branches of some nefarious Skeptical Movement, do have common beliefs, goals, and methods which makes them manifestations of a decentralized social movement based on skepticism. This that of course not ever skeptic is involved in a skeptical movement. I'm not trying to accuse (as I think the so-appropriately named quasi-concern troll) is that of trying to perpetuate "Skeptical Orthodoxy" without regard to real knowledge much like fundamentalism in religion does. Rather, I'm just trying to point out that constantly denying the existence of skeptical movements (or movements based on skepticism, or whatever you want to call them) runs contrary to the well-accepted and well-observed phenomenon of social movements being the collective action of individuals who share common beliefs and goals. I therefore wonder if there is some advantage to skeptics in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

Originally Posted by New England Skeptical Society
To educate the public about the principles and necessity of skepticism and critical thinking in our society.
[...]
To promote higher standards of education, especially in the areas of science and critical thinking skills.

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:

Originally Posted by Irish Skeptics
To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.

Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims

Originally Posted by New England Skeptical Society
To gather and disseminate information of interest to skeptics.

Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

 

[Moochie]

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

I agree.

I wonder if "mijopaalmc" is writing/has written a thesis and is trying to make it stick.

M.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

You know its amazing the mental gymnastics that people will perform to deny that there are no skeptical movements. Honestly, I thought that one of the things that annoyed posters here about woos was that, when confronted with the falsity of their assertions and the truth of the counterassertions, they move the goal posts to preserve the possibility that their pet theory might still be true. While I admit that I have used the phrases "self-identified skeptics" and "drawn together by skepticism", I think that requirement that these organization and societies explicitly state that they use skepticism is a bit absurd, especially since most of those that don't, at least those that I have cited that don't, are those that use "skeptics" in their title. Additionally, Wikipedia (which I know is not the be all and end all of human knowledge) offers two definitions "skepticism" as:

In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to

1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

(Merriam–Webster)

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about

1. the limitations of knowledge
2. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing
3. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values
4. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment
5. a lack of confidence in positive motives for human conduct or positive outcomes for human enterprises, that is, cynicism and pessimism

(Keeton, 1962).

The particular brand of skepticism to which skeptical organizations and societies prescribe may not include all aspects of the above definitions; but it needn't because "skepticism" merely includes any of the above aspects. Therefore, any groups that engage in "systematic testing" as it is claimed that most of the organizations whose mission statements I have cited do are engaging in skepticism and are therefore skeptical. Since the action is collective in nature and is promoted to the community at large as a more acceptable way of conducting social interactions, such organizations represent manifestation of a decentralized skeptical social movement.

Why do people find the data I have presented unconvincing or the analogies I have tried to draw false?

 

[John Jackson]

You know its amazing the mental gymnastics that people will perform to deny that there are no skeptical movements.

I think the original term was "organised skeptical movement".

That term was never defined and so all that has occurred is that people have interpreted it to mean what they want it to mean and so everyone thinks they're winning the argument.

The fact is that no-one is winning any argument as the argument was never defined.

 

[ReligionStudent]

You know its amazing the mental gymnastics that people will perform to deny that there are no skeptical movements. Honestly, I thought that one of the things that annoyed posters here about woos was that, when confronted with the falsity of their assertions and the truth of the counterassertions, they move the goal posts to preserve the possibility that their pet theory might still be true. While I admit that I have used the phrases "self-identified skeptics" and "drawn together by skepticism", I think that requirement that these organization and societies explicitly state that they use skepticism is a bit absurd, especially since most of those that don't, at least those that I have cited that don't, are those that use "skeptics" in their title. Additionally, Wikipedia (which I know is not the be all and end all of human knowledge) offers two definitions "skepticism" as:




The particular brand of skepticism to which skeptical organizations and societies prescribe may not include all aspects of the above definitions; but it needn't because "skepticism" merely includes any of the above aspects. Therefore, any groups that engage in "systematic testing" as it is claimed that most of the organizations whose mission statements I have cited do are engaging in skepticism and are therefore skeptical. Since the action is collective in nature and is promoted to the community at large as a more acceptable way of conducting social interactions, such organizations represent manifestation of a decentralized skeptical social movement.

Why do people find the data I have presented unconvincing or the analogies I have tried to draw false?

I don't think I am moving goal posts at all. You brought up various unlinked groups to show evidence for the skeptical movement this thread began talking about. This thread began talking about one linked organized skeptic movement. I fail to see how a group of different groups with different stated goals is a single organized movement.

My critique of their stated goals is based on this. When I first stated that they were not skeptic movements someone said they were about education and making people understand skepticism or compared them to the different groups in the civil rights movement that did not agree but worked toward similar ends.

I think they all list largely seperate ends, and one clear difference is between skeptical education and the investigation of frauds. I think one teaches methodology and possibly works for social acceptance of skeptics (that is what I would call a skeptic movement). The other goal that most seem to have is testing, which I think is more about people not being taken in by frauds and allowing such frauds to dominate the realm of discourse. I don't think this is necessarily about teaching skeptical methodology and I certainly do not think it is about social betterment for skeptics. This is a scientific persuit, one might as well call something like the IAA a skeptic movement since it attempts to use scientific methodology in exposing forgeries (to what success is another discussion).

 

[Foster Zygote]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps we could even name this tactic after T'ai Chi? Whenever someone is deliberately vague about defining his/her position with the intent of attacking other's positions without having to defend his/her own it can be called "Pulling a T'ai Chi".

 

[blutoski]

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?

Firstly, it's not possible because of privacy. The BCSkeptics have about 1,000 members. CSI has something like 100,000, and if you want a sampling of JREF members, browse through the JREF Forum Members List, and see who checked off "I am a member".

Secondly, the analogy is either ignorant or intentionally misleading. Consider: I don't think anybody has a list of the names of the people who attended Dr. Martin Luther King's speech at the reflecting pool, but I'm pretty sure I'd call that 'organized'. I'm pretty sure there was a 'movement' for equal rights for blacks in the '60s, even though there were hundreds of 'more or less aligned' societies/organizations/informal groups involved.

The point is that people were organized to work together for social change, and others who shared the goals supported them informally. This is what makes a movement.

Skeptics are doing this, too.

 

[blutoski]

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.

Nobody claimed this was sufficient. The vital piece of the puzzle is advocacy for change. I doubt your PC user group has a lobbyist in Washington. I doubt you have 'media action committees' to monitor local media outlets, and write responses in the name of their PC society. I doubt you write letters to your MP to promote change in your riding. And so on.

 

[blutoski]

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

C'mon. You're saying you really believe that the New England Skeptical Society "hardly" has anything to do with skepticism?

Please.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

How would you describe SkepticReport?

 

[Moochie]

Nobody claimed this was sufficient. The vital piece of the puzzle is advocacy for change. I doubt your PC user group has a lobbyist in Washington. I doubt you have 'media action committees' to monitor local media outlets, and write responses in the name of their PC society. I doubt you write letters to your MP to promote change in your riding. And so on.

You're correct in all of the above. For achieving those ends we have the Australian Computer Society -- bloody elitist bunch of dweebs, too.

And I am not a member.

And I am still not convinced of an "organized skeptical movement."


M.