The Word "Skeptic" Must Go

[The Atheist]

Also "Sceptic".

It's been well and truly hijacked and is now worthless.

"I'm skeptical of climate change" means the person is a denier.

"I'm skeptical of vaccines" is double-speak for "I'm ant-vax."

"I'm skeptical of Covid....." means the person is a conspiracist loon.

The term is done and needs to be dropped entirely. I never liked it, have never identified as one, and the word always has negative connotations that are at odds with the idea of critical thinking, which is a process.

 

[lionking]

Also "Sceptic".

It's been well and truly hijacked and is now worthless.

"I'm skeptical of climate change" means the person is a denier.

"I'm skeptical of vaccines" is double-speak for "I'm ant-vax."

"I'm skeptical of Covid....." means the person is a conspiracist loon.

The term is done and needs to be dropped entirely. I never liked it, have never identified as one, and the word always has negative connotations that are at odds with the idea of critical thinking, which is a process.

Which is all the more reason to take it back and reinforce the meaning of skeptical thinking.

 

[smartcooky]

Which is all the more reason to take it back and reinforce the meaning of skeptical thinking.

This

 

[The Atheist]

Good luck with that plan - you'll be horribly outnumbered.

Let me know when you've achieved it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Misused words and phrases tend to be on a bit of a treadmill.

Most things you can call something good will be widely used by pricks to praise crappy stuff or subverted into a slur.

Most things you could call something that challenges the status quo or makes jerks uncomfortable will be willfully misinterpreted as a lazy way to attack the idea.


Replace the word or phrase and the same will likely happen again.
I suspect that whatever you call what you're trying to point to, it will either be:

1) Too obscure for anyone to know what it means without lengthy explanation.

2) By the time it's widely enough used to be recognized, it will be coopted by some kind of lunatic.

3) Unless it's long and clunky and awkward enough that no one will want to self label as doing it anyway.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

"I'm skeptical of climate change" means the person is a denier.

"I'm skeptical of vaccines" is double-speak for "I'm ant-vax."

"I'm skeptical of Covid....." means the person is a conspiracist loon.

The term is done and needs to be dropped entirely.

Are you skeptical of aliens, ESP, homeopathy, trickle-down economics? What about religion? There are a lot of commonly held beliefs to be skeptical of.

There's a distinct difference between skepticism and denial. Skeptics don't believe things without sufficient evidence. Deniers reject all evidence. But believers don't need any evidence. Only skeptics require facts and logic, rather than uncritically believing or reflexively denying what they are told.

Take away skepticism and the only positions left are belief and denial. Is that what you want?

Good luck with that plan - you'll be horribly outnumbered.

It shouldn't be hard to 'take back' the word skeptic from those who abuse it. Simply substitute the words 'denier' or 'believer' where appropriate. If someone is skeptical of something, show them the evidence. If they don't accept it then call them what they are.

And lead by example. Too many 'skeptics' here are not willing to critically examine their own beliefs, and/or are too eager to cherry pick facts and twist logic to prove they are 'right'.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you skeptical of aliens, ESP, homeopathy, trickle-down economics? What about religion? There are a lot of commonly held beliefs to be skeptical of.

That's not skepticism, it's Captain Obvious vs Self Delusion.

There's a distinct difference between skepticism and denial.

When you convince the general population of that, let me know. As it stands, by far the most likely way you'll encounter the term in ordinary life is when it's matched with climate, vaccine or medicine.

It shouldn't be hard to 'take back' the word skeptic from those who abuse it. Simply substitute the words 'denier' or 'believer' where appropriate.

Sure, let me know how it goes.

I'd venture that well under 1% of people on social media are ever challenged about their alleged skepticism on climate, etc.

And lead by example. Too many 'skeptics' here are not willing to critically examine their own beliefs, and/or are too eager to cherry pick facts and twist logic to prove they are 'right'.

Not an issue for me, but I agree with you that it happens, which actually lends more weight to my argument. It's one of the prime reasons I've never used the term.

 

[The Atheist]

... self label ...

Why even use a label?

Stick to facts.

 

[smartcooky]

internationalcriticalthinkers.com

 

[Puppycow]

Why even use a label?

Stick to facts.

I think we use labels as shorthand to refer to concepts about which entire encyclopedia articles could be written.

It's for efficiency and pithiness.

Much quicker to say "I am a skeptic" than to explain the whole philosophy of skepticism each time.

I generally don't go around identifying myself as a skeptic however, except maybe in rare cases if asked to describe my belief systems. If the topic is religion, I would identify as either "atheist" or simply "non-religious".

"I endeavor to form my worldview based on the available evidence, and not based on faith in any scripture or religious dogma."

The sentence above accurately describes my philosophy without using the word "skeptic". But it still requires more words than simply "I am a skeptic".

Possible alternative to "Skeptic":
Empiricist

(In epistemology, empiricism is different from rationalism and skepticism)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We've been here before with 'science is just another religion' and claiming rational thinking could apply to anything a person claimed it applied to.

Just politely explain why said word either doesn't apply of has more than one meaning.

I recall a few angry replies when I've used the 'rational thinking' terminology. I don't care. They were wrong.

It doesn't matter which word you use, the irrational, anti-science folks will try to usurp the terminology because they have no other argument.

 

[xjx388]

We've been here before with 'science is just another religion' and claiming rational thinking could apply to anything a person claimed it applied to.

Just politely explain why said word either doesn't apply of has more than one meaning.

I recall a few angry replies when I've used the 'rational thinking' terminology. I don't care. They were wrong.

It doesn't matter which word you use, the irrational, anti-science folks will try to usurp the terminology because they have no other argument.

Right. People will claim to be using critical thinking, rationality, skepticism, etc in order to make it sound like they’ve given it a lot of thought and/or that they’ve seen the evidence.

This is so evident right now with all the Covid misinformation going around. Somebody will say, “Have you seen the latest study that supports Hydroxychloroquine?” Then link to one of the already debunked studies. When I point out the flaws in the study they cite and support my argument with citations, they will accuse me of “cherry picking,” or of not “understanding the science” or even of buying into “media bias” and “conspiracy theories.

True Believers have learned to throw skeptical arguments back at anyone that disagrees with them, as if those arguments are enough to rebut valid points. It’s Cargo Cult Skepticism.

I totally agree that “skepticism” and its tools are used inappropriately by a lot of people, but the answer isn’t to come up with a new term for the Skeptical outlook. It’s to illustrate the difference, to point out the flaws in thinking. You may not convince the True Believer, but you can maybe convince others who are listening in or reading the arguments.

 

[Meadmaker]

I just don't know a better term. We're named after a magazine.

The original proposed name for said magazine was "The Rational Inquirer". I don't know why they went with "Skeptical Inquirer" instead. Copyright or trademark concerns? I don't know if there was a tendency to use "skeptic" as shorthand for "doesn't believe in non-scientific nonsense" before the magazine.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I've never in speaking told anyone I'm a skeptic.

To me, the vernacular in the past meant you were a global warming skeptic.

If I wanted to describe my "skepticism", I'd say "I am into logic, critical thinking, and reason", and will add "the scientific method" if it's discussing health, for example.

 

[Lplus]

Also "Sceptic".

It's been well and truly hijacked and is now worthless.

"I'm skeptical of climate change" means the person is a denier.

"I'm skeptical of vaccines" is double-speak for "I'm ant-vax."

"I'm skeptical of Covid....." means the person is a conspiracist loon.

The term is done and needs to be dropped entirely. I never liked it, have never identified as one, and the word always has negative connotations that are at odds with the idea of critical thinking, which is a process.

Those three statements are just your jaundiced view of other peoples motives for using the word skeptic.

By definition, skepticism is the questioning of accepted opinions - and the concensus on all three of those subjects are most certainly accepted opinions and thus fit subjects for the application of skepticism.

Taking the first, there are a large number of scenarios being projected from minimal to utterly catastrophic - being skeptical of the extremes of the scenarios is only sensible, it doesn't mean total denial at all.

Even questioning the accepted opinions on vaccines and covid 19 is reasonable behaviour - not all have been proven correct after all.

Your three statements are just shorthand dismissal of anyone who might even think of questioning the accepted science - so so wonder you don't consider yourself a skeptic...

 

[The Atheist]

internationalcriticalthinkers.com

Actually, the days of needing snappy urls is long gone and it wouldn't matter.

Possible alternative to "Skeptic":
Empiricist

You can guarantee that one won't be co-opted!

To me, the vernacular in the past meant you were a global warming skeptic.

Bingo.

Those three statements are just your jaundiced view of other peoples motives for using the word skeptic.

I'm not describing their motives, I'm describing what they are.

Climate skeptics are denier morons.
Vaccine skeptics are dangerous antivax filth.
Covid skeptics are conspiracist loons.

I don't care what their motives are, and I don't think there was any attempt to co-opt the term - it's a case of idiots with no brains trying to come up with anything that enables opposition while retaining some kind of moral authority.

Your three statements are just shorthand dismissal of anyone who might even think of questioning the accepted science...

Give yourself a candyfloss! Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

 

[Lplus]

Actually, the days of needing snappy urls is long gone and it wouldn't matter.



You can guarantee that one won't be co-opted!



Bingo.



I'm not describing their motives, I'm describing what they are.

Climate skeptics are denier morons.
Vaccine skeptics are dangerous antivax filth.
Covid skeptics are conspiracist loons.

I don't care what their motives are, and I don't think there was any attempt to co-opt the term - it's a case of idiots with no brains trying to come up with anything that enables opposition while retaining some kind of moral authority.



Give yourself a candyfloss! Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Well, stereotyping anyone who questions the accepted opinion as a denier/racist/fascist/nazi does seem to be an increasingly common attitude on this forum - maybe you're right, maybe the name should be changed....

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm not sure of a pithy term to describe a "skeptic", but logic.com isn't doing much online. Nor is logicforum.com.

 

[Lplus]

I'm not sure of a pithy term to describe a "skeptic", but logic.com isn't doing much online. Nor is logicforum.com.

Skeptic is fine, it's simply a description of someone who doesn't just parrot the accepted line and insists on making their own mind up. The final decision may be to agree with the majority opinion, or it may not, but that shouldn't be a result of skepticism in itself - it should be a result of logical thought following the skepticism.

 

[lionking]

I shouldn’t have to add this, but there are very important differences between generic skeptics, which is most of the people on this forum, and single issue skeptics. The former refer to themselves, often deferentially, as “skeptics” the latter, rather more proudly, as “climate skeptics” or “vaccination skeptics” etc. I’m happy to refer to my self when asked as the garden variety generic skeptic with everything that goes with the title. People who know me know the difference between generic skeptic and single issue skeptic and that’s good enough.

The media, social media in particular, will get the distinction wrong. So what? The media gets a heap of things wrong.