I've been wondering about that for a long time.
1) There's traditional skepticism, which is Hume and people like that, and is sometimes called philosophical skepticism.
2) Then there's the skepticism that is practiced as an integral part of the culture of science, which is what Richard Feynman wrote a lot about.
3) Then there's the skepticism practiced as part of the culture of what might be called the skeptical movement, which is what this newsgroup is about, what the Skeptical Inquirer is about (or was before their quality dropped), what Skeptic is about, etc.
4) Then there's religious skepticism, which is more what Free Inquiry is about.
Yes, the term has many meanings. I'd like to add a type 0, which would be the classical (antique) skepticism, from which the others originated. ie: the Academy.
I am operating from the position of 2, which is what I consider real scientific skepticism. That's just to tell you where I'm coming from. I'm not going to try singing its praises, and I doubt it would have any effect if I did.
A lot of what I see as the success of the skeptical movement has involved comes from the overlap of 3 with 2. There has also been a traditional agreement that 3 not overlap much with 4, due to some sort of coalition building.
My concern, however, is that 3 is becoming less and less overlapped with 2. This is why I criticized Shermer's statement.
I think it's important to understand that skepticism - even the modern movement - has undergone significant changes over the last 30 years.
Consider: why are there three major organizations? CSICOP, Skeptics, and JREF? The answer: they have different agendas, with enough overlap to be still considered 'part of skepticism'.
Your reaction, and the reaction of others, seems to be confirming my observation. I see it as essentially a social response of a community protecting itself. I see your argument as essentially an argument from authority, which is very much disjoint from meaning 2.
It
is an argument from authority. Argument from authority is part of how science operates. By rejecting arguments from authority, you are undermining all of science.
Note also that I seem to be the only one saying that.
Don't take this the wrong way, but we hear it all the time. Rarely from skeptics, though. It's very popular when a scientific authority shows up in court to contest, say, creation science. Or when a government panel listens to a debate on homeopathy. The countersuggestion is called populism: that everybody can be their own expert. Altmed argues this, too: your doctor's just a guy. Take charge of your own health. Read some pamphlets, and you'll know more than the MD. Ivory towers are for the tumbling.
That is, skepticism is what Shermer said it is, and he has the right meaning because he founded the Skeptics Society. So what I call the skeptical movement is becoming more and more like a waterfall community, where what skepticism is, what one is supposed to consider an appropriate target for skepticism, and to some extent what one is supposed to conclude are determined by leaders, and that trickles down. Being a member of the community becomes more and more defined by acceptance of these dicta. And then the community protects itself and its leaders in an emotional manner, involving contempt and gang behavior. So, basically, I'm an upstart and have little or no alpha male status, and that makes me wrong.
I didn't say he had *the* right meaning, just because he founded the Skeptics Society. I said that when I disagree with him, it's a sign that I should pay more attention to my position.
Credibility is earned, not assumed to be equal for every participant.
Trouble is, that in itself is not what I consider a skeptical process. Yet I notice it happening a lot in the skeptical movement. There's gang behavior in this forum.
I've also noticed quite a few of what I'd call shibboleths in the skeptical movement. Global warming is one of them. The Monty Hall problem was the first that I noticed, and I found it notable because the Gary Posner article specifically missed the actual skeptical content (in sense 2) in the original question that sparked the controversy. (One letter to the editor printed in SI got it, out of dozens that played follow-the-leader.)
One of the problems is that we are not actually experts in these things, yet we have a metric assload of opinions about them. This is why there's a schmozzle when discussions can only be resolved after detailed analysis.
Years ago, CSICOP got into massive trouble with the Mars fiasco: a bunch of amateurs took it upon themselves to resolve a complicated question.
Skeptics on this forum - and globally, of course - are a real mix. I try to stay within my scope of competence (I exceed it from time to time), but the real problem is that the experts aren't interested in this level of debate, and tend not to participate. All we can do is read their work and talk about it.
