"Brights" essay

[billydkid]

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=38

I too think it is a mistake for skeptics to adopt this moniker. I think it is pretentious and self congradulatory in the way that some believers are self congradulatory. I am and individualists and do not like lumping myself in.

[billydkid]

And I'm not really all that "bright" to be honest.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by billydkid
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=38

I too think it is a mistake for skeptics to adopt this moniker. I think it is pretentious and self congradulatory in the way that some believers are self congradulatory. I am and individualists and do not like lumping myself in.

I 100% agree.

I think I fit the "official" definition of Bright, but I won't own up to the label. It sounds like we're a psychic elite, almost Lafayette Ron Hubbard style.

F*** that!

[T'ai Chi]

In my opinion, it is pretty desperate to actually admit to purposefully desiring to spread a meme.

I do also think that probably better choices exist instead of "Bright". It is not totally bad, just a little awkward, and probably unneeded.

[xouper]

billydkid:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=38Quoting from that article:

Jeremy Stangroom: What this means for the brights idea is that the criterion of a naturalistic worldview ... is no guarantee that people will not be committed to beliefs, or sets of beliefs, <span style="background-color: #ffc;">which are beyond rational scrutiny</span> in the same way as are many of the beliefs which are associated with theism. Possibly the supporters of the brights movement will not deny this, ...Interesting. Not only does James Randi seem to deny this, but as I remarked in an earlier thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870008198), he seems to be actively promoting the notion of "brights'" as exclusively rational thinkers in his July 18 Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/071803.html):

James Randi: Two weeks ago, I ran a notice that Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, both of Sacramento, California, worked on the definition of the noun "bright" to define a person who <span style="background-color: #ffc;">depends on evidence, reason, and logic, for decision-making</span> — as opposed to dogma, superstition, and mythology, that is.Edited to add: This is certainly not the official definition of the label "bright". Have I missed something here?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Traveller says this term won't spread like people with huge egos want because lots of skeptics and non-skeptics are saying **** that bright **** bitch.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, that word "Bright" is going to be associated with arrogance now.

Sucks.

Need a better word....

Like?

Realist? Is that too arrogant as well...

We have h umanist, a theists, n aturists, a gnostics, f ree-thinkers, and s keptics.

Hmm.

hanafs humanist atheist naturalist agnostic free-thinking skeptic
shanfa
shanaf
fashna
snafah
shafna
fanahs
fansah free-thinking athiest naturalist skeptical agnostic humanist
hafans

Or just

fans Free-thinking atheist naturalist skeptic

I vote for F. A. N. S. :cool:

[Rolfe]

Except that "fans" is current short-hand for science fiction readers who socialise with each other and may attend conventions. You need to find something which isn't already spoken for.

Now I tested with an IQ of 161, and they used to call me "bright" as a result. I've just got back from an SF reading group, and am usually considered to be a "fan". I'm on this board because I hate people who con other people with false paranormal claims, especially quack medical claims, with a fiery passion.

However, I'm a Christian. I can't see any point in arguing the toss here, but there are plenty people who scoff at magic and all sorts of tawdry woo-woo who nevertheless don't consider religion to be irrational. And there are plenty of very deep thinkers and philosophers who would agree with them.

Now, because of this, you want to deny me both the label "bright", and the label "fan", both of which have been mine up to now.

Hey, what's wrong with rationalist or naturalist anyway?

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, maybe religious skeptics can have a name all their own. Why not? You don't want to call yourself something that is linked to atheism, or you'll be mislabeled as an atheist.

Fans is the same as F. A. N. S.

Ah well. not like I'm going to starting any kind of movement. Just a suggestion.

I thought you didn't like 'brights', and would be pleased not to be a complete definition of one.

Otherwise,
Anything that atheist skeptics try to make their own will probably be seen as taking it away from everyone who is not an atheist skeptic.

Naturalist kinda reminds me of nudists
:roll:

Rationalist will be seen as accusing people who don't fit the new description as irrational...meaning christians will feel they are being called irrational in the same way as not being 'bright' makes them being called 'dumb'.

I don't think the atheist skeptical humanist will ever just have a name all their own.


Hmm. A.S.H. or H. A. S. ?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

People like using lables so they can feel ****in special.

[Eos of the Eons]

:rolleyes: No, I'm just tired of feeling isolated in the middle of a town fool of woo woos and woo woo worshippers that think irradiation will ruin all of our food and vaccines make kids stupid.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I thought you didn't like 'brights', and would be pleased not to be a complete definition of one.

Rationalist will be seen as accusing people who don't fit the new description as irrational...meaning christians will feel they are being called irrational in the same way as not being 'bright' makes them being called 'dumb'.

Hmm. A.S.H. or H. A. S. ?
I don't like the hijacking of the word "bright" because it means I can't have that word used of me any longer if this catches on, or use it of anyone else without the risk of implying that they're an atheist.

I don't have any problem with the above use of "rationalist" - it has a long and honourable pedigree of that usage, and is listed in my (small, pocket) dictionary to that effect ("practice of treating reason as basis of belief and knowledge"). Any religious person would readily concede this usage, for that reason, and because they would agree entirely that accepting a religious world-view involves a "leap of faith" which may well be regarded as beyond reason.

In fact naturalist is technically the best one (belief that the "natural world" is all that there is?), but I take your point about nudism, and also in the dictionary "naturalist" is listed as "student of natural history", which is something else again.

So I'm inclined to label you as "rationalist", citing the dictionary as justification, until something else (hopefully not involving offending any other group or hijacking words already needed for other things) gains general acceptance.

Er - Action on Smoking and Health? HAS-been?

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Good points. So, any suggestions other than rationalist?

HAS-common sense :D

HAS- a brain
HAS- kids
HAS- a kitten
not so bad.


Rash...ha ha...rationalist atheist skeptical humanist...LOL!

I think they are working on the word brights to be broken down, I don't remember how though.

B
Rationalist
I
G
Humanist
T


I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

[hammegk]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004153

I've missed the successful attack on Kant's basic ideas. Maybe on some other board?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004153

I've missed the successful attack on Kant's basic ideas. Maybe on some other board?

From the article (by Dinesh D'Souza)The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.And there is your strawman. I don't know anyone who thinks we'll eventually find out everything there is to know. Even if there is no theoretical limit to what we can learn through rational means, there is also no limit to what there is to discover. That makes for a practical situation that we'll never know everything.

There you have it. Kant (D'Souza) debunked. That wasn't hard.

In the end, this argument depends on what a theist always must resort to, argument from ignorance and God of the gaps. According this this argument, your "5 senses" give you only an approximation of reality, so let's cross the gap with a leap of faith.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc


There you have it. Kant (D'Souza) debunked. That wasn't hard.

Convinced yourself anyway, huh?


In the end, this argument depends on what a theist always must resort to, argument from ignorance and God of the gaps. According this this argument, your "5 senses" give you only an approximation of reality, so let's cross the gap with a leap of faith.
Agreed. The only disagreement is that materialists/atheists have the same problem but choose not to admit it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Convinced yourself anyway, huh?Well don't be offended if I don't submit myself to your judgement.Agreed. The only disagreement is that materialists/atheists have the same problem but choose not to admit it. Here we go again. What's the leap of faith you're referring to? If your answer is that it's that there's any reality at all, then don't even bother.

[EdipisReks]

didn't we all agree to use "Uncarved Ones" in that "god carves christians like pumpkins" thread?

[Eos of the Eons]

LMAO! Uncarved! Unscathed...

IT is easier to find truth when you don't have an unproven supposition forced on you. When you are allowed to ask why and go in search instead of grasping on to the only known answer (which only leaves more questions unanswered).

[Jeff Wagg]

Brights is not the perfect word, but until something better comes along, I'm going to stick with it. I agree with just about everyone's arguments against the term, but I can't come up with anything better. Michael Shermer tried, and he couldn't think of anything better either, so I'm in good company.

So I'm a bright until a better word comes a long. I'm also an atheist, agnostic, free thinker, secularist and humanist on occasion. I'm interested in Zen Buddhism, casino chips and running water. There's no one term that's going to completely describe me.

-Jeff Wagg
Richmond, VT

[Jeff Wagg]

Brights is not the perfect word, but until something better comes along, I'm going to stick with it. I agree with just about everyone's arguments against the term, but I can't come up with anything better. Michael Shermer tried, and he couldn't think of anything better either, so I'm in good company.

So I'm a bright until a better word comes a long. I'm also an atheist, agnostic, free thinker, secularist and humanist on occasion. I'm interested in Zen Buddhism, casino chips and running water. There's no one term that's going to completely describe me.

-Jeff Wagg
Richmond, VT

[epepke]

At first I was tepid about this term, but the more criticism I hear about it, the more I like it.

So it "hijacks" a word? How is this different from "gay," the debate over which went on for two decades?

So it's "arrogant"? Since when has any believer at all over the past few eons given a millisecond of thought to their practice of referring to themselves as being "enlightened" or having "seen the light" or "walking in the light"? Or is there some special onus on non-believers not to be like "uppity ni..." whoops! Almost used a forbidden word here.

Even if the word doesn't stick, there is some value in the debate over the word, because it's bringing into focus some opinions that were previously blurry.

On the one hand, part of me wants not to become an obnoxious, in-your-face kind of person. On the other hand, part of me balks at being expected to endure the low level of scorn heaped upon the rational, not to mention the Mad Scientist myth, while religions seem to get Automatic Respect. It's the moral equivalent of walking around saying, "Yazza, Massa. I ain't be makin' no waves."

[Jeff Wagg]

[, "Yazza, Massa. I ain't be makin' no waves."

I agree 100%, although I've been thinking...what do most groups name themselves? They tend to either describe themselves (Baptists, Quakers, Shakers...) or they name themselves after a founder (Calvinists, Menonites, Lutherans...).

Is there perhaps a founder we could rally around? Is there any way in hell we could agree on someone?

Hume? Darwin? O'Hare? Bob?

Hey, we could be the Humans(uh..) or the Darwinians(not enough) O'Hares?(too many rabbit jokes).

Idea...what if we were just called the Memes? It's not arrogant, and it's certainly a fact.

Just trying to get some discourse going on what I see as an important subject.

Jeff Wagg

[billydkid]

Why not just "rational"? Why on earth do we need another lame code word?

[epepke]

Originally posted by billydkid
Why not just "rational"? Why on earth do we need another lame code word?

If we picked the word "rational," Dinesh D'Souza, that dweeb from Beliefnet, and all the others would be saying exactly the same thing as they are now about "bright." Ooh, ooh, ohh, you all think you're so "rational," do you? Which implies that you think I'm "irrational," and that ticks me off. And "rational" would become the Lame Code Word.

I'm beginning to think that, although it is easy to find fault with any given word, the majority of reaction is due to the fact that people dislike and mistrust us. Period.

I'm reminded about the arguments over "hacker." The term originiated in the bowels of MIT to describe people who were passionate about advancing computer technology. The public and press rapidly turned it into meaning "some bastard who broke into your system." And they point to their Mirriam Websters with supercilious glee. Eric S. Raymond suggested the term "cracker," a perfectly valid back-formation from "safecracker," but people laughed at him.

But I think that's missing the point. Any term for someone who is interested in computers has to be bad because, well, didn't the computer in 2001 kill all those astronauts, and didn't the computer in Demon Seed rape that woman, and didn't the computer in Alien invite the alien on board?

Similarly, any term for non-woo-woos has to be negative because, aw you party pooper, what's the harm in letting people feel good, and the Founding Fathers were all Baptists even if they weren't, and this is a Christian Nation except it isn't, and besides, your desire for me not to shove my religion down your throats impairs my God-Given Rights. Hell, you should be glad we don't massacre you any more like we did back in Texas, you ungrateful bastards!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
[B]Hey, we could be the Humans(uh..) or the Darwinians(not enough) O'Hares?(too many rabbit jokes).


It would be "O'Hair," and personally, I always thought that she was largely an embarrassment.

If you want a serious person name, I think it would come down to "Ingersoll" and "Jefferson." "Ingersoll" doesn't work too well with the common adjective endings. "Jeffersonian" works pretty well, but then we'd have to deal with the other connotations, such as his impregnating one of his slaves.

[Rolfe]

The dictionary definition of "rationalist" seems to be pretty much exactly what you're talking about, and the fact that it's already an accepted definition would deflect much criticism (if indeed there was any). I don't see what's wrong with that.

Rolfe.

[T'ai Chi]

I'd personally would avoid all '-ists', and all names where the opposite of it could obviously be taken to be negative.

That is why I think 'skeptic' is still the best word. It is not an -ist. Some people take it to be negative, but obviously it isn't.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That is why I think 'skeptic' is still the best word. It is not an -ist. Some people take it to be negative, but obviously it isn't.
Well, you could learn to spell it.... ;)

I don't think it's the right word, though. I'm a fearful sceptic as regards pseudoscience and especially pseudomedicine, and my default explanation for anything appearing or claiming to be miraculous is "either mistake or fake", but having said that I'm a Christian, so you'd instantly want to kick me out of this little club you're trying to define (OK, maybe it's a big club, but I'm still not in it).

That's the trouble with most of the words that have been suggested so far. They already apply to people who may accept them as applying to them, but who would not fit what you're trying to define, and would therefore be deprived of part of their vocabulary. I include "bright" and "fan" in there, and now "sceptic" too.

Do you really need a word?

Rolfe.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Rolfe
but having said that I'm a Christian, so you'd instantly want to kick me out of this little club you're trying to define (OK, maybe it's a big club, but I'm still not in it).

I don't know that this is true. It depends on whom one asks, which is the nature of umbrella terms. The website links to an exchange between a minister and someone who suggests that the minister qualifies as a bright. Martin Gardner is a Christian, and I personally think that he qualifies as a bright. I don't know enough about you to form an opinion, and I rather suspect that the point is moot anyway.

Do you really need a word?

Why do gays need a word? Why wasn't "homosexual," which like "rationalist" is already in the dictionary, good enough?

[thaiboxerken]

If you don't like the Bright movement, don't join it. I don't see the big problem here.

[xouper]

epepke: Why do gays need a word? Why wasn't "homosexual," which like "rationalist" is already in the dictionary, good enough?Except homosexuals didn't invent the label "gay" as a marketing ploy (like the label "bright" is). It was originally thrust upon them as a derogatory term.

[hgc]

Originally posted by xouper
Except homosexuals didn't invent the label "gay" as a marketing ploy (like the label "bright" is). It was originally thrust upon them as a derogatory term. If we skeptics were to wait for that to happen, we'd eventually be calling ourselves sourpuss. :roll:

[xouper]

thaiboxerken: If you don't like the Bright movement, don't join it. I don't see the big problem here.I see the big problem here. I object to the "bright" movement hijacking a perfectly good word that already has a legitimate use. If the "bright" movement catches on, then it will no longer be possible to refer to someone as being bright without having to explain that you meant he's bright, but not "a bright".

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by xouper
I see the big problem here. I object to the "bright" movement hijacking a perfectly good word that already has a legitimate use. If the "bright" movement catches on, then it will no longer be possible to refer to someone as being bright without having to explain that you meant he's bright, but not "a bright".

It will be a sad day when a person can't tell the difference between Bright and bright based on context. Does the word "gay" bother you in the same way?

The Bright's is a club. If you don't like the club or the club name, simply don't join. I don't like the Boy Scout's, but I'm not out there trying to shut them down.. even though Homophobe Scouts would be more of a suitable name for them.

[xouper]

thaiboxerken: It will be a sad day when a person can't tell the difference between Bright and bright based on context. Does the word "gay" bother you in the same way?In my experience, there is sometimes little or no context to tell which meaning of the word gay is intended. If I simply say someone is gay, the default interpretation these days is homosexual, even if that's not what I meant. In order to use the word gay in a non-homosexual context, I have to go out of my way to provide additional context. And if I don't do it just exactly right, I open myself up to criticisms such as, "Oh, do you have something against gays?" I would hate to see the word bright get hijacked like that.

The Bright's is a club. If you don't like the club or the club name, simply don't join. I don't like the Boy Scout's, but I'm not out there trying to shut them down.The boy scouts didn't hijack a word like the "brights" are trying to do. Also, I'm not trying shut down the "club". I am objecting to the hijacking of a word.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by xouper

The boy scouts didn't hijack a word like the "brights" are trying to do. Also, I'm not trying shut down the "club". I am objecting to the hijacking of a word.

They hijacked the word "scout" though. I highly doubt that they are a recon group.

[thaiboxerken]

Isn't this about the time I should start insulting and making fun of you, Xouper? Oh.. wait, this isn't about paranormal nonsense.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Well, you could learn to spell it.... ;)


I can spell it in whatever language you require. ;)


I'm a fearful sceptic as regards pseudoscience and especially pseudomedicine, and my default explanation for anything appearing or claiming to be miraculous is "either mistake or fake", but having said that I'm a Christian, so you'd instantly want to kick me out of this little club you're trying to define (OK, maybe it's a big club, but I'm still not in it).


You yourself say that your default explanation for anything appearing or claiming to be miraculous is either mistake of fake, yet you believe in Christ apparently, and perhaps in some of the feats in the Bible and/or the claims of other Christians. This is contradictory.

Moreover, I think the point of skepticism is that we shouldn't have 'default explanations' for new events, but rather seek out explanations through serious study and inquiry. Calling something a mistake or a fake, without serious study, is not a skeptical position.

So I think there is evidence to say that while you are skeptical of various things, you are not skeptical of other things. Depending on how deep your beliefs in Christianity reach, you could be anything from ultra-skeptic to ultra-woo-woo.

[epepke]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


They hijacked the word "scout" though. I highly doubt that they are a recon group.

Yes, and there used to be a group called the "Environmental Scouts" in Georgia that the BSA sued into oblivion. The Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts have a congressional charter which has been interpreted to mean a protection on the word "scout" that goes far beyond trademark or copyright.

So, not only did they hijack the name, they did so in a particularly obnoxious manner.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Depending on how deep your beliefs in Christianity reach, you could be anything from ultra-skeptic to ultra-woo-woo.
Sure, and I'm not having that argument. I'm just pointing out that this whole idea seems based on an intent to hijack words which have already recognised meanings and redefine them in such as way as to deny them to people who previously had a claim on them.

I don't want to join your "bright" club, but I object to no longer being able to use the word "bright" in its existing sense ("clever") without possibly been held to imply that the person described is also an atheist.

Rolfe.

[epepke]

Originally posted by xouper
Except homosexuals didn't invent the label "gay" as a marketing ploy (like the label "bright" is). It was originally thrust upon them as a derogatory term.

No; it wasn't. Perhaps you are thinking about "queer." "Gay" was adopted exactly as a marketing ploy, because the other words were considered cold or derogatory.

I mean, come on! The IBM company song contained the line, "that's why we are so gay."

At the time of the Stonewall riots, nobody used "gay" as a derogatory term. Indeed, the connection with "homosexual" was sparse that advocates came up with convoluted histories to show that it may have been used in Elizabethan times to describe homosexuality.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I don't want to join your "bright" club, but I object to no longer being able to use the word "bright" in its existing sense ("clever") without possibly been held to imply that the person described is also an atheist.

Ayup. And you can no longer use "gay" to mean what it meant for most of the 20th century.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by epepke


Ayup. And you can no longer use "gay" to mean what it meant for most of the 20th century.
And that also can be a problem. But that was evolution of language, not a deliberate hijacking by a self-interested group.

Edited to add: To the best of my knowledge, and it was certainly accepted the last time we had this exact same discussion, Xouper is right about this. The etymology is argued about and finally agreed on somewhere around here.

We've already been round this at least twice. Was it the same thread....? :confused:

Rolfe.

[tamiO]

Instead of the name "bright" we could pick a color. Indigo is already taken.

;)

[tamiO]

IMO

There is no need for the label. I admire the people who are using the label, but I was really surprised to hear that Penn & Teller are self proclaimed "Brights."

I am recalling that correctly, aren't I?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by tamiO
Instead of the name "bright" we could pick a color. Indigo is already taken.

;)
:dl:
(It's a good idea, though.)

Rolfe.

[xouper]

epepke: No; it wasn't.Yes; it was.

Let's step back a minute and look at what you are defending. Are you saying it's ok for the "brights" to hijack a word because other words have been hijacked in the past? Since when does one wrong action justify a subsequent one?

[T'ai Chi]

Hijacking words, affirming the natural world, whatever. I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you are already on, and I don't see anything wrong with doing either of those things.

I'd personally say the motive was good, but the word choice was not as good as it could have been (not that I have anything better). But I am still proud to be called a Bright because there are no supernatural elements in my worldview. I have no need for those hypotheses.

So does anyone have any good arguments for why it is wrong to hint that someone who has a supernatural worldview is not rational?

[epepke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rolfe

And that also can be a problem. But that was evolution of language, not a deliberate hijacking by a self-interested group.

(wipes eyes) Thanks; that's the first real laugh I've had from these groups.

May you, in twenty or thirty years, meet some clone on a group who swears that "Bright" was evolution of language, not a deliberate hijacking by a self-interested group!

[Jack of Hearts]

What about "skepticist" as a new word? If skepticism (like communism) is the practice, then surely a skepticist (like a communist) would be the practitioner?

I'd rather call myself a "skepticist" than a Bright.


xoxo,
John

[Jeff Corey]

I like that because it doesn't have the snooty connotation of "bright",
The New York Area Skepticists.
I like it.

[Matabiri]

Richard Dawkins' discussion of "Bright" is interesting (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html ), mainly because he appears to go all brittle and mad when he starts discussing it.

Why do we (as humans) need to find ways of pigeonholing ourselves anyway? Why do we need a term?

(I'm very anti party politics, too...)

[Jack of Hearts]

Surely the ubiquity of nomenclature in language / culture throughout history should suggest that it is an inherent aspect of our mental structures, and that we can no more get rid of the tendency to want words with which to label people any more than we can get rid of the tendency to want a stable platform under our feet and a horizon that doesn't wobble.

Just a thought.

I also had a thought that we could come up with three or four complementary labels (since just one doesn't work). They'd all be complimentary, as well, or at least elegant or poetic (something like Earths, Airs, Fires, and Waters... but NOT that!). The primary differences between the categories that are always listed as defense of polycategorization can suggest the lines drawn between these new categories -- and the categories together form... an Alliance!

An alliance of the willfully sane! :p


Regards,
John