Randi redefines the label bright?

[xouper]

In Randi's July 18 commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/071803.html) he again calls himself a bright.

Randi: It's what we brights call, "nature."

Randi: I'm a bright...
Ugh. :rs:

I'm a big fan of Randi's work, but I just can't accomodate this.

It also appears that Randi has completely altered the definition of a bright:

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 depends on evidence, reason, and logic, for decision-making — as opposed to dogma, superstition, and mythology, that is.The original definition (http://www.the-brights.net/faqs.htm#What is the Definition of Bright) of a bright refers to your worldview, not how you make your decisions. Randi's definition would include people like Hal, but the original intent of the word does not. Contrary to what Randi seems to be saying, a person could indeed be dogmatic in his decision-making and still be a "bright", provided his worldview was naturalistic.

What a PR nightmare. How many people will be putting their own spin on the definition, thus perhaps diluting or muddling the original intent?

Have any big wheels publicly denounced this new label yet?

[Lord Kenneth]

Why not mail him about it?

[xouper]

Lord Kenneth: Why not mail him about it?Considering what happened last time I emailed him (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22511) for clarification, do you really think that's a good idea? :)

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Why not mail him about it?

Because Randi regards xouper as a troll. How right he is. :cool:

[xouper]

Diamond: Because Randi regards xouper as a troll. How right he is. :cool:That's an outright lie. How nice of you to put lies in Randi's mouth like that.

[BillyJoe]

xouper,


Couldn't a naturalistic worldview be defined as a worldview (belief system) based on evidence, reason and logic as opposed to dogma, superstition and mythology.


To be clear, the original wording did not actually include any of the positive attributes mentioned by Randi (evidence, reason, logic) and none of the negative attributes mentioned by him (dogma, superstition and mythology)

The original wording included....
Positives: rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists", "nonreligious", "uninterested in religion"
Negatives: "absent any presumption of forces or entities beyond what can be observed/measured", "free of supernatural and mystical elements".

However, I think the flavour is the same. What do you think?


BillyJoe

[xouper]

BillyJoe: Couldn't a naturalistic worldview be defined as a worldview (belief system) based on evidence, reason and logic as opposed to dogma, superstition and mythology.Could be. As I understand it, however, the definition of a bright doesn't require that you arrived at a naturalistic world view by any particular method (i.e. decision-making process). You could be the dimmest bulb on the planet, incapable of properly using reason and logic, and yet you could still be a bright. In other words, you don't have to be bright to be a bright.

[BillyJoe]

xouper,

Okay, I see what you mean: All the Bright movement is interested in is that it's members have a naturalistic worldview free of the supernatural and mystical. It is not interested in how they arrived at this view.

Actually, they don't explicitly state that they are not interested in how they arrived at their naturalistic worldview.
Isn't it possible, then, that this is implied?
I did find one quote that could suggest that it is implied....

These unaffiliated exist in numbers far larger than those who are part of the politically and socially marginalized community of reason.BillyJoe.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Diamond

Because Randi regards xouper as a troll. How right he is.

I was wondering how long it would be before you jumped in on this thread with your unwelcome provocations.

On behalf of everyone else who would like the chance to read threads Xouper happens to post in without them being derailed with pointless insults (rather trollish behaviour itself, I might add), I ask you, Diamond, to restrain yourself. Please.

Sorry to everyone else who reads this and finds no Bright-related content.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by xouper
That's an outright lie. How nice of you to put lies in Randi's mouth like that.

You could ask him but...oh dear he's blocked your e-mail and refuses to talk to you. Shame that... :D

[Diamond]

Originally posted by JamesM


I was wondering how long it would be before you jumped in on this thread with your unwelcome provocations.

On behalf of everyone else who would like the chance to read threads Xouper happens to post in without them being derailed with pointless insults (rather trollish behaviour itself, I might add), I ask you, Diamond, to restrain yourself. Please.

Sorry to everyone else who reads this and finds no Bright-related content.

What's the pointless insult? That xouper pulls up Randi for using a sentence of three words? That Randi won't converse with xouper any more?

It's to the point. Your comment is not.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Diamond

What's the pointless insult? That xouper pulls up Randi for using a sentence of three words? That Randi won't converse with xouper any more?

It's to the point. Your comment is not.

Maybe your accusation was appropriate on the original thread where your disagreement with Xouper began. Perhaps it merited a re-airing on the BillHoyt Logic thread. Repeating it here is trollish.

I don't want to get embroiled in a flame war with you, so I won't make any further posts about this, but rather if you keep it up, I will report you to the moderators (yes, I'm sure you're quaking in your boots).

[Diamond]

Originally posted by JamesM


Maybe your accusation was appropriate on the original thread where your disagreement with Xouper began. Perhaps it merited a re-airing on the BillHoyt Logic thread. Repeating it here is trollish.

I don't want to get embroiled in a flame war with you, so I won't make any further posts about this, but rather if you keep it up, I will report you to the moderators (yes, I'm sure you're quaking in your boots).

I'm quaking in my boots. Feel free. I've lost count of the number of threads that xouper has derailed in order to insult me or others. That is his right (since no-one's going to stop him).

To the point, I was answering Lord Kenneth's comment not xouper. Perhaps you should ask him to stick to the subject?

[davefoc]

I have a few opinions:
1. I think xouper made a reasonable point in his first thread.
2. I was disapointed that Randi didn't see it also, but I did appreciate the fact that he took the time to respond to xouper.
3. I think the notion of calling skeptics brights is silly so I don't care how you define it I'm not going to use it.

[xouper]

davefoc: ... I did appreciate the fact that he [Randi] took the time to respond to xouper.That's a good point that bears repeating. I appreciate that too, especially considering it was a minuscule issue compared to Randi's main work.

I respected his wish to end that particular conversation even though I would have liked the opportunity to apologize and correct my failure to ask my questions properly or effectively. Obviously I didn't mean to antagonize or push any hot buttons, and perhaps some day I will get the chance to straighten it out with him.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by xouper
That's a good point that bears repeating. I appreciate that too, especially considering it was a minuscule issue compared to Randi's main work.

I respected his wish to end that particular conversation even though I would have liked the opportunity to apologize and correct my failure to ask my questions properly or effectively. Obviously I didn't mean to antagonize or push any hot buttons, and perhaps some day I will get the chance to straighten it out with him.

Send it to Hal or Linda. I'm sure they'll pass it on.

[Moose]

Xouper's issues aside, I have to admit some unease at Randi's use of the word "bright" in that context.

Not that Randi isn't bright, he's clearly brilliant.

But I feel the term, as used, is simply too antagonistic to be helpful to his cause. I think it's unnecessarily alienating to fence-sitters who might be educated and clued in with a more welcoming and friendly attitude.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from here, I have little problem with the term "woo-woo", while antagonistic, it's targetted sufficiently narrowly (specifically at the proponents) to avoid tarring the fence-sitters or the gulled.

But even as a skeptic, I feel uncomfortable enough at his use of the term "brights" that I don't feel I can support his efforts while this practice continues.

I sincerely hope Randi can reconsider his use of the word "bright" in that context.

[Vent]

3. I think the notion of calling skeptics brights is silly so I don't care how you define it I'm not going to use it.


agreed.

[Reginald]

It almost seems contradictory to find such a "catch all" word and apply it to the kind of people it is being applied to.

It's like labelling a group of people "The unlabelled".

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Reginald
It's like labelling a group of people "The unlabelled". :)

That's almost as good as my own version "The Individualists"
(Okay, it's better)

[hal bidlack]

If you choose to email Mr Randi, don't think that a delay in getting an answer is an insult. When he returned from his trip out west, he had over 500 emails waiting for him, plus other communications.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
If you choose to email Mr Randi, don't think that a delay in getting an answer is an insult. When he returned from his trip out west, he had over 500 emails waiting for him, plus other communications.

I've emailed web site administrators so busy that it took over 2 weeks to return my e-mail. Of course, that guy might have been lazy, as well... but who knows?

Also, xouper, remember that Randi probably gets a ton of people challenging everything he says, and is probably used to trolls out to prove him wrong. If you e-mail him make it clear that you're not out to make him look like a fool. In your first letter you seemed to be some UFO junkie (not saying you are, just that you could have come across as an alien apologist).

[xouper]

Lord Kenneth: In your first letter you seemed to be some UFO junkie (not saying you are, just that you could have come across as an alien apologist).That's an interesting bit of feedback. In case the record needs to be set straight, I'm not a UFO apologist or junkie. I'm a pilot who is trained and experienced in the identification and avoidance of flying obejcts. If Randi assumed otherwise, then he gets to own some of the blame for the communication failure.

I won't be emailing him for any further clarifications of his commentaries. He quite clearly told me he has better things to do, and I respect that, even though it seems he may have meant it as an insult.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by xouper
That's an interesting bit of feedback. In case the record needs to be set straight, I'm not a UFO apologist or junkie. I'm a pilot who is trained and experienced in the identification and avoidance of flying obejcts. If Randi assumed otherwise, then he gets to own some of the blame for the communication failure.


You should have mentioned that you were a pilot, I don't think you did. That would probably have changed the course of the conversation..

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
You should have mentioned that you were a pilot, I don't think you did. That would probably have changed the course of the conversation.. I don't see how it was imcumbent on xouper to preempt Randi's testy leaping to conclusions. A question is what it is, regardless of the profession or beliefs of the questioner.

Randi may well be more likely to take a choleric tone with questioners because the majority of them tend towards the irrational, but in this case, I think he just didn't get xouper's point and fell back on his default assumption that the problem was with the questioner instead of one of his own reading comprehension.

[Lord Kenneth]

Here's a theory: Randi forgot who you were during your e-mail correspondence (happened to me all the time over AIM), and just answered each e-mail while forgetting the previous correspondences. Or not.

But I agree with you, although you did make some mistakes yourself when you e-mailed Randi-- you did invent some strawmen, although not intentionally, and that's probably what set him off.

Here's the main issue: Pilots are trained to recognize things in the sky. Most former astronauts are/were pilots. Therefore, astronauts may be a "reliable witness" but not necessarily, since most but not all are former pilots.

Am I correct?

[xouper]

Lord Kenneth: Am I correct?I've already debated those issues in the other thread. If my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.

[reprise]

I'm sorry that Randi has adopted the term "bright" to refer to himself and other skeptics as I fear that his use of the term legitimises it and will lead to its use by others.

[Soapy Sam]

I'm simply staggered that anybody would choose a word which sounds so ......daft, as well as so unnecessary; particularly people of the calibre of those who apparently have endorsed the term.
The reaction on this forum seems to be overwhelmingly negative. I wonder why that would be so here and not elsewhere?

[Diamond]

Originally posted by xouper
I've already debated those issues in the other thread. If my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.

Yes. Apparently pilots are more authoritative observers of UFOs because they write fewer books on UFOs than others. :rolleyes:

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by xouper
Could be. As I understand it, however, the definition of a bright doesn't require that you arrived at a naturalistic world view by any particular method (i.e. decision-making process). You could be the dimmest bulb on the planet, incapable of properly using reason and logic, and yet you could still be a bright. In other words, you don't have to be bright to be a bright.

That's explicitly what it says. You don't have to hide from sunshine to be a Black, you don't have to laugh at everything to be a Gay, and you don't have to have a post-nuclear glow to be a Bright.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I'm simply staggered that anybody would choose a word which sounds so ......daft, as well as so unnecessary; particularly people of the calibre of those who apparently have endorsed the term.
The reaction on this forum seems to be overwhelmingly negative. I wonder why that would be so here and not elsewhere?

The people who are bothering to react are the ones with negative reactions. Maybe you can reconsider your esthetic judgement of it as "daft", considering the folks who have signed on?

It's not a substitute term for "skeptic", though most skeptics probably fit the definition. So do a lot of Unitarians and Jews, for that matter.

[Eos of the Eons]

Oops, double post :wink8:

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I'm simply staggered that anybody would choose a word which sounds so ......daft, as well as so unnecessary; particularly people of the calibre of those who apparently have endorsed the term.
The reaction on this forum seems to be overwhelmingly negative. I wonder why that would be so here and not elsewhere?

And what do you suggest is not "DAFT" to use?

As a newly joined 'Bright' myself, I've always felt alone in my beliefs that there is no spirits, gods, afterlife, etc.

It's about darn time that there was a label I could put on myself. What is wrong with legitimising beliefs based on FACTS and scientific evidence? Is it only okay to believe and legitimize something not based on facts, and only on faith? That's hardly fair.

It's about darn time that religious folks recognize that their beliefs aren't the only belief system on the planet. It's also time to stop believing their way is the only way, and if you think differently then you deserve to be ostracized and labelled as evil and going to hell.

[BillyJoe]

Eos,

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
And what do you suggest is not "DAFT" to use? It is "DAFT" to use any label.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
As a newly joined 'Bright' myself, I've always felt alone in my beliefs that there is no spirits, gods, afterlife, etc. And what's so terrible about being alone?

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
It's about darn time that there was a label I could put on myself. why? why? why? why?

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
What is wrong with legitimising beliefs based on FACTS and scientific evidence? Is it only okay to believe and legitimize something not based on facts, and only on faith? Nothing.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
That's hardly fair.Life's not fair. Live with it.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
It's about darn time that religious folks recognize that their beliefs aren't the only belief system on the planet. It's also time to stop believing their way is the only way, and if you think differently then you deserve to be ostracized and labelled as evil and going to hell. Who the hell cares what they think. They'll continue to think it anyway.

BillyJoe.

PS: If you want to snuggle together under a label like the religious folk do, you'll just be playing the silly little games they play. Hell, you might as well call yourself religious. At least they will and you'll have supplied them with a neat little label that they can target you with.

[Eos of the Eons]

Being able to find people to actually discuss the topic with is not like being a religious group. We won't worship a god and send money to some 'leader' who will use it to buy mansions.

I'm tired of feeling alone in my outlook on life. We are social animals. Feeling alone in a pool of sharks that go on about 'agendas' against religion sucks


It's not a silly game to be able to discuss topics of interest. What are you doing here then BillyJoe?

I'm sick of discrimination, and showing that every day normal people have like minds will help dispel discrimination.

Geez, I mean people in my city want David Suzuki to not be able to write or talk about evolution in the media. This idiot wrote a letter to the editor saying he should be censored.

[BillyJoe]

Eos,

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Being able to find people to actually discuss the topic with is not like being a religious group.I didn't say it was.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
We won't worship a god and send money to some 'leader' who will use it to buy mansions. No, I don't expect thet you'll "get on your knees and start paying" quite yet!

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I'm tired of feeling alone in my outlook on life. We are social animals. Feeling alone in a pool of sharks that go on about 'agendas' against religion sucks.There is no need to feel like a social outcast just because you're a sceptic or atheist (if being one without the other is actually rationally possible). Do you always bring up the topic at all the parties you go to? If other people bring up the topic, do you burn away inside or do you try to find out what makes that person tick? There's no need to feel alone. That religious person is otherwise just a human being like you are. Why do you feel more comfortable with like-minded individuals. Isn't that just a characteristic of a religious person?

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
It's not a silly game to be able to discuss topics of interest. Discussing these topics is not what I'm talking about. Snuggling together with like-minded individuals is. What is the point. What can you learn from someone who thinks just like you do. If you snuggle together under a banner with others just like yourself, how are you any different then people snuggling together under a particular brand of religion.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
What are you doing here then BillyJoe? Certainly not to listen to someone with the same views as myself. I am more interested in someone with an alternative view to discover why they hold such views. And you never know, I may just learn something as well - not something I'm likely to do listening to myself.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I'm sick of discrimination, and showing that every day normal people have like minds will help dispel discrimination. Well I think this is the path towards discrimination not the path away from discrimination.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Geez, I mean people in my city want David Suzuki to not be able to write or talk about evolution in the media. This idiot wrote a letter to the editor saying he should be censored. So would you censor his right to write that letter; to voice his opinion about David Suzuki? This "idiots" stance is probably consistent with his religious world-view. Find out what his world-view is and you might understand why he wants to censor Suzuki.
And, rather than blindly support Suzuki, you may be better placed to critically examine the details of his views. I'm not suggesting that you don't but, hell, if he enlists as a bright, who knows how uncritical you might be tempted to become.
(I saw him host a program where he seemed to be uncritically accepting that quantum mechanics might provide a mechanism for psychic ability)

regards,
BillyJoe.

[reprise]

Eon, to many of us skeptics and atheists the label "bright" simply seems pretentious and wanky. We already have words which are more than adequate for describing what we do and don't believe - the last thing we want is some "one size fits all" trendy label which tries to incorporate every belief which isn't founded on deism.

We aren't trying to sell a soft-drink here, or promote a fad - critical thought deserves more respect than a catchy, buzzword offers. We don't want a label which is more attractive than the concepts it represents. We're selling the steak here, not the sizzle.

[Eos of the Eons]

Discussing these topics is not what I'm talking about

It's what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to censor idiots, I'm trying to educate. If people see that we aren't a bunch devil worshippers, then maybe they'll be more willing to open their minds a bit. Then we won't see people censoring anyone. I didn't censor the idiot, I stuck up for David Suzuki. It was the idiot doing the censoring, and only idiots censor.

If you don't like the term, you can see on the site why the term is being used for now.

I thought I was like the one in a zillion people that thought there was no such thing as deities and the supernatural. Everyone I know believes in some 'higher power' or dieties or some religion.

Seeing that I'm not alone is like finding a long lost family. It's not going to start everyone discriminating against the rest of the world. Only close minded people discriminate, and that's not what this is about in the least.

I also belong to 'groups' like book readers, and we don't discriminate against people that aren't in a book reading group.

Stop trying to label those who don't mind labels as 'the type' to start acting like close minded discriminating fools.

I didn't say anyone should blindly follow anyone. I said people shouldn't try to censor others with misinformation and mistruths. If you read the article you wouldn't be chastising me like this.

I don't think I posted my rebuttal article link here so here it is

Enter Here (http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Guestop.html)

[xouper]

xouper: I've already debated those issues in the other thread. If my position isn't clear by now, it never will be.

Diamond: Yes. Apparently pilots are more authoritative observers of UFOs because they write fewer books on UFOs than others. :rolleyes:For the record, that is not my position and never has been. I never said that, implied it, nor does it follow logically from anything I've posted on the topic.