Is this forum representative of skepticism?

[tkingdoll]

I just had a conversation with someone about skeptic organisations and the skeptical community at large, as reflected in event attendance, forum participation, magazine readership etc.

My friend is involved with organisations like CSICOP and has a completely different impression of who skeptics are and what we discuss. His impression is that skeptics are largely preoccupied with paranormal claims, where my experience from TAM and this forum and other forums is that the paranormal is actually one of the least discussed topics (if you look at the post count for the forum index you will see that science, technology, politics, religion etc are discussed as much or more).

However, I wonder if my perception is skewed because this is an internet community/ more likely to attract a younger group of skeptics?

In which case, are we seeing the emergence of a new generation of skeptics which is moving away from the fringe paranormal stuff and into topics which affect the general public more?

Or is it just that there isn't much paranormal stuff in the news/on TV at the moment, but if there was, that's what would dominate the forum?

My opinions are coloured hugely by own experiences so I'd like to gather some thoughts from others.

[Garrette]

I do not know if the JREF community is typic or representative, but as one of the first members, and assuming my memory is not failing, I can assure you that for a long while the topics were very heavily weighted toward the supernatural.

Perhaps it's an evolution of the forum. Perhaps as you suggest it's a reflection of a changing membership.

Or perhaps some other old timers will verify or refute my memory.

[Darat]

....snip...

Or is it just that there isn't much paranormal stuff in the news/on TV at the moment, but if there was, that's what would dominate the forum?

...snip...

It's fashion, lots of the "older" paranormal stuff hardly gets any mainstream media recognition these days. But I'm sure if Sir David Frost was parading and pampering Uri Geller on a prime time Saturday night TV show there'd be a lot more about that.

In fact I think there is some data that could be collated from this Forum. You could look to see what was most popular when a few years ago John Edward was at his "height" (aka depth) of his popularity. My impression was that there seemed to be a lot more on the Forum about mediumship and the like at that time. You could also perhaps look to see if there was an upswing in physic discussions here when the media shone its spotlight on SB recently.

[drkitten]

I just had a conversation with someone about skeptic organisations and the skeptical community at large, as reflected in event attendance, forum participation, magazine readership etc.

My friend is involved with organisations like CSICOP and has a completely different impression of who skeptics are and what we discuss.

Well, you may be confusing the difference between the reason for the group and the community of the group.

Just as an example, what do you think gets discussed at the Philosophy Department Christmas Party? In my experience, it's not philosophy -- it's vacation plans, children, sports, gossip, the usual things you would expect when you put a dozen smart people into a room. Of course, if anyone really wants to know something about the relationship between God and deontological ethics, they can explain that to you. But they're not going to be talking about that on a regular basis.

[tkingdoll]

It's fashion, lots of the "older" paranormal stuff hardly gets any mainstream media recognition these days. But I'm sure if Sir David Frost was parading and pampering Uri Geller on a prime time Saturday night TV show there'd be a lot more about that.

In fact I think there is some data that could be collated from this Forum. You could look to see what was most popular when a few years ago John Edward was at his "height" (aka depth) of his popularity. My impression was that there seemed to be a lot more on the Forum about mediumship and the like at that time. You could also perhaps look to see if there was an upswing in physic discussions here when the media shone its spotlight on SB recently.

Yeah, I've been collecting index post count data for a while now (note to anyone worried, I haven't used individual's data, just the forum index totals for each topic which is freely available) but would like to have a year's worth before I compare it all.

But then ghost stuff is all over TV and there's not that much discussed about it so I do wonder if it's skepticism that is moving on and not just a reflection of what's in popular culture.

[Beady]

First, I would like to point out that the thread I started on Boobage Etiquette has received more than 30 responses in only ~ 1 hour. Skeptical interests appear to be wide-ranging.

Second, let's face it, paranormal claims, conspiracy theories, etc, are really rather limited in scope, and you can only go over the same old ground so many times. It just doesn't take very long before everything starts sounding s-o-o-o-o familiar, no matter how "new" it is. I really think it's possible for someone to write an all-purpose debunking book where, rather than giving a detailed refutation to any given claim, you just cite a chapter and paragraph.

[tkingdoll]

Well, you may be confusing the difference between the reason for the group and the community of the group.

Just as an example, what do you think gets discussed at the Philosophy Department Christmas Party? In my experience, it's not philosophy -- it's vacation plans, children, sports, gossip, the usual things you would expect when you put a dozen smart people into a room. Of course, if anyone really wants to know something about the relationship between God and deontological ethics, they can explain that to you. But they're not going to be talking about that on a regular basis.

Ah, but the people in the Philosophy Department are brought together by a common profession. Of course they aren't going to discuss it at a party, they do it all day for a job.

But almost no-one here is a professional skeptic. I bet for many, this is their only platform for skeptical debate. So what brings everyone here to join the community and what drives the topics we discuss?

[Crazycowbob]

Second, let's face it, paranormal claims, conspiracy theories, etc, are really rather limited in scope, and you can only go over the same old ground so many times. It just doesn't take very long before everything starts sounding s-o-o-o-o familiar, no matter how "new" it is. I really think it's possible for someone to write an all-purpose debunking book where, rather than giving a detailed refutation to any given claim, you just cite a chapter and paragraph.

I think, along these lines, that yeah, the same subjects have been hashed and rehashed by the most active members, and that they've most likely moved on to topics that have more bearing on day to day life, and change with more regularity. After all, how many times can you debunk "memory water" before you get tired of it and let the new folks deal with it? Of course, if the other new folks are as lazy as myself, then they'll read that it's already been debunked, and move on to newer, more interesting topics :D

[Wowbagger]

It seems to me that this Forum is the real happenin' place to be, in the Skeptic world, at least on the Internet. There are a lot of other skeptical forums and resources out there, that are very cool. But, nothing represents the wide-ranging interests of the skeptical community better than the JREF sites.

I hypothesize James Randi's personality and demeanor has a lot to do with it. He can be either very gentle and friendly or tough and relentless, whenever he needs to be. Even though he rarely participates in the Forum, himself, he can still draw in the friendly, community-oriented skeptics, and make all the woos quiver, at the same time.

[tkingdoll]

So is this forum representative of the larger skeptic world? There are thousands of skeptics out there reading skeptical magazines and going to events who do not use this message board.

[Horatius]

So what brings everyone here to join the community and what drives the topics we discuss?



The attraction to the community is about having a place to discuss any of these topics in a rational manner. I think the particular topics which are discussed is driven largely by what woo we find "in the field".

Back in the 90's, most of the woo I saw on TV dealt with alien abduction, UFOs and like. Lately, there have been more of the "ghost hunter" type shows. As the culture of woo has evolved, so have the discussions here.

There's also an ebb and flow to the amount of woo you get in any given topic. There have always be conspiracy theorists around, but in the last few years, there's been a major upswing in their activity, so skeptics have followed along. Similarly with creationists, there was a big surge back when school boards were moving towards teaching ID, but now that that's been dealt a harsh blow or two, the pace is slowing down.

But it will all come around again, I'm sure. And we'll still be here.


ETA: And then we have a real live example from today: Ear Stapling (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2487349#post2487349). What goes around comes around....

[Fnord]

First, I would like to point out that the thread I started on Boobage Etiquette has received more than 30 responses in only ~ 1 hour. Skeptical interests appear to be wide-ranging...

I wonder now how many people saw the words "Boobage Etiquette (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78610&highlight=boobage)" and immediately went looking for it?

Besides me... :o

[Beady]

So is this forum representative of the larger skeptic world? There are thousands of skeptics out there reading skeptical magazines and going to events who do not use this message board.

How could that question ever possibly be answered? There's a fair bit of communication and overlap between Randi's, Shermer's and Plait's groups, but what about between these three and, say, the Russian skeptics, or the Italians? And notice that, unconsciously, I went from groups based on individual leaders to a geographical and linguistic differentiation; how do you gather the information that would answer your question?

Fnord: It just reinforces my point that even skeptics think that some things are more interesting than skepticism. As further evidence, the skepchicks appear just as interested in the topic as do the guys.

[Baron Samedi]

I wonder now how many people saw the words "Boobage Etiquette (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78610&highlight=boobage)" and immediately went looking for it?

Besides me... :o

Damn. Busted. :D

[LawnOven]

Ah, but the people in the Philosophy Department are brought together by a common profession. Of course they aren't going to discuss it at a party, they do it all day for a job.




Haha, that is not my experience with the academic community at all. :)

[Senex]

Is this forum representative of skepticism?

I'm new to this forum, but I can't stress enough how impressed I am with the intelligence and civility of this forum. Skeptics should be intelligent and civil. I suspect because Randi is intelligent and civil that the forum has followed his lead. Pick a topic a skeptic would dwell on and you will find multiple threads of thoughtful posts.

My vocabulary fails me thinking of a word to surpass representative, but this forum is that.

[Beady]

I'm new to this forum, but I can't stress enough how impressed I am with the intelligence and civility of this forum.

Boy, you are new!

[tkingdoll]

How could that question ever possibly be answered? There's a fair bit of communication and overlap between Randi's, Shermer's and Plait's groups, but what about between these three and, say, the Russian skeptics, or the Italians? And notice that, unconsciously, I went from groups based on individual leaders to a geographical and linguistic differentiation; how do you gather the information that would answer your question?



I was thinking about USA and UK skepticism, I guess, as my friend seems to think that the CSICOP-membership/Skeptical Inquirer reading type of skeptic is a different sort to the JREF forum type (or at least the topics discussed are). Or rather he described that sort and I am claiming that's not what the forum is like at all.

Myself, I have no involvment with that side of things - I don't read skeptic magazines for example. But there must be posters here who are also involved in skepticism in the way that my friend describes. If there is no crossover, does that mean this forum is fulfilling a need that cannot be fulfilled elsewhere, or that it is simply an alternative source of information to print, or that there is an emerging new generation of skeptics? Or other reasons? I'm just looking for thoughts on this, I'm not expecting a definitive answer.

[tkingdoll]

Skeptics should be intelligent and civil.
Intelligent? That seems like you're saying if you aren't intelligent, you can't be a skeptic. Perhaps you don't mean it that way though. I'm not sure skeptics "should" be anything - skepticism is a methodology but if those who employ it choose to label themselves, then they gain nothing by excluding others based on ability. Anyone can think critically, they just have to want to. I doubt it has anything to do with intelligence although I don't doubt there is a correlation between intelligence and attraction to skepticism.

If anyone reads this forum or any other skeptic resource and thinks they are not smart enough to be a skeptic, then organised skepticism has some serious problems.

[drkitten]

Intelligent? That seems like you're saying if you aren't intelligent, you can't be a skeptic. Perhaps you don't mean it that way though. I'm not sure skeptics "should" be anything - skepticism is a methodology but if those who employ it choose to label themselves, then they gain nothing by excluding others based on ability.

Well, I would turn it around. I have a very fluid view of intelligence, and I think that a skeptic "should be" intelligent in the same way that a martial artist or marathon runner "should be" fit. The process of becoming a marathon runner makes you fit, and similarly, the process of critical thinking and skepticism makes you intelligent.

[tkingdoll]

Well, I would turn it around. I have a very fluid view of intelligence, and I think that a skeptic "should be" intelligent in the same way that a martial artist or marathon runner "should be" fit. The process of becoming a marathon runner makes you fit, and similarly, the process of critical thinking and skepticism makes you intelligent.

Yeah, we're just using different definitions of 'intelligent' - of course the public's perception of intelligent is something akin to 'that capacity that IQ measures' I think. Which is not the sort of intelligence you are describing at all but was how I read Senex's comment.

Okay, another question. What evidence is there that the process of critical thinking and skepticism makes you intelligent (in the way that you define it)? Or did you mean it in the general sense of "any sort of thinking does that"?

[CFLarsen]

Well, I would turn it around. I have a very fluid view of intelligence, and I think that a skeptic "should be" intelligent in the same way that a martial artist or marathon runner "should be" fit. The process of becoming a marathon runner makes you fit, and similarly, the process of critical thinking and skepticism makes you intelligent.

Does that mean psychics are very "intelligent"?

[Minarvia]

If anyone reads this forum or any other skeptic resource and thinks they are not smart enough to be a skeptic, then organised skepticism has some serious problems.

This is sort of a problem for me. It's not that I don't think I'm intelligent enough to be a skeptic, but from what I've seen around here I still am quite intimidated at times. I find that the folks here are so well-informed about so many things (names and studies and philosopies, oh my!) that I can't keep up.
I'll just try and be patient and keep reading and learning and maybe eventually I'll be one of those well-informed skeptics.

[drkitten]

Okay, another question. What evidence is there that the process of critical thinking and skepticism makes you intelligent (in the way that you define it)? Or did you mean it in the general sense of "any sort of thinking does that"?

Well, within very broad limits, any kind of thinking does that. But puzzle solving is well-documented to be better at such things, precisely because it requires a certain amount of creativity and "higher-level" skills. Anyone can follow directions, but it requires a deeper level of analysis to look at a set of directions and see the flaws in them.

But that, of course, is exactly what "skepticism" is. When presented with a datum, the first question a skeptic should ask is "Is it true? How could I find out wheher or not it's true?"

When puzzle-solving is a way of life, you get good at such things.

[drkitten]

Does that mean psychics are very "intelligent"?

Yes, Claus, that's exactly what it means.

In a parallel universe that exactly mirrors this one except that words have completely different meanings from the ones they have in this one.

In that universe, that was a very insightful question, too.

[Horatius]

I was thinking about USA and UK skepticism, I guess, as my friend seems to think that the CSICOP-membership/Skeptical Inquirer reading type of skeptic is a different sort to the JREF forum type (or at least the topics discussed are).



Short of doing some sort of survey of SI readers, I don't think we can really tell. The nature of the media is too different. By it's nature, you get a better view of who is interested in JREF, because they actively post on the boards.

The only feedback you get in a magazine is letters to the editor, which are, at first, self-selected by the writers (that is, they care enough to mail a letter), and then selected by the editors for inclusion. So you can't really tell how many people are interested in a particular topic. Unlike a forum, which lists views, and numbers of posts, which gives you more immediate feedback on the interest levels.



Myself, I have no involvment with that side of things - I don't read skeptic magazines for example. But there must be posters here who are also involved in skepticism in the way that my friend describes. If there is no crossover, does that mean this forum is fulfilling a need that cannot be fulfilled elsewhere, or that it is simply an alternative source of information to print, or that there is an emerging new generation of skeptics? Or other reasons? I'm just looking for thoughts on this, I'm not expecting a definitive answer.



Part of it is allowing "casual" skeptics to contribute what they can to the community. Prior to the internet forum age, you often only had a few "name" skeptics contributing, as you needed name recognition to sell magazines, and what not. With a forum, such pressures are significantly reduced, so you can get away with more "small name" posters.

Take me for instance. I know quite a bit about patents, but that is a topic that only rarely comes up. But when it does, I have something useful to contribute, and I "actively" seek out such topics. How would the editors of SI know to ask me for such input, since they've never met me*? They wouldn't, and so I would never have the chance to offer any input.

So I'd say they offer different, but perhaps complementary, benefits.




*Okay, I did meet one of them at TAM5, but you get the point!

[Horatius]

...but from what I've seen around here I still am quite intimidated at times. I find that the folks here are so well-informed about so many things (names and studies and philosopies, oh my!) that I can't keep up.



That's not intelligence, that's just education! :)

[tkingdoll]

Excellent feedback so far, thanks.

Horatius, I think the differences you point out are good points. I will add that magazines (and presumably SI does this) have an annual readership survey which gauges interest in particular topics and editorial sections, and magazine content is adjusted to reflect this. If SI doesn't do this, then it's a shame.

[drkitten]

That's not intelligence, that's just education! :)

... and, of course, education can be quite impressive when spread among so many people. One of the things I like about the JREF community is that you can find a card-carrying expert about almost anything. The lawyers may not know much about history, and the historians may not know much about law --- but the debates tend to bring out people's strengths, not their weaknesses.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, Claus, that's exactly what it means.

In a parallel universe that exactly mirrors this one except that worlds have completely different meanings from the one they have in this one.

In that universe, that was a very insightful question, too.

Aren't psychics equally good at what they do, compared to a marathon runner or a martial artist?

[Darat]

Just a point to mention - don't even know if it is relevant - the number of active Members here is a fraction of the number of people that "lurk".

[Fnord]

There's a lot more to be skeptical of than ghosties, and ghoulies, and things that go "bump" in the night.

- Alien Abductions
- Audiophile Myths
- Biased Jurisprudence
- Bigfoot
- Boobage Etiquette
- Chiropractic
- Fallacies of Reason
- Fraudulent Claims
- Free Energy
- Governmental Conspiracies
- Homeopathy
- Korean Fan Death
- Loch Ness Monster
- Prejudice
- Psychic Readings
- Religion/Politics
- Skepticism
- Urban Legends

... and the list goes on.

[Garrette]

This is sort of a problem for me. It's not that I don't think I'm intelligent enough to be a skeptic, but from what I've seen around here I still am quite intimidated at times. I find that the folks here are so well-informed about so many things (names and studies and philosopies, oh my!) that I can't keep up.
I'll just try and be patient and keep reading and learning and maybe eventually I'll be one of those well-informed skeptics.Specifically to this point, I think you are doing both yourself and this forum a disservice by not joining in more.

There are some highly intelligent people here and some highly informed ones. Frequently they are the same people but not always.

The majority of folks, however, are average in both intelligence and knowledge. If we stay silent because we don't feel up to par, then what we will soon end up with is a shrinking pool of increasingly egotistical elitists who find that in this small pool they are the never-caught big fish.

And sometimes those big fish are wrong.

If you read, you learn.

If you post, you learn more.

So post away and remember the personal attacks aren't personal after all.

---

And to tie that to the OP: I would suggest that the pattern of posting is not representative of skepticism in general. It is a self-selecting group comprising those who are outgoing (at least electronically) and possessing some level of expertise in a generally little known subject.

[drkitten]

Aren't psychics equally good at what they do, compared to a marathon runner or a martial artist?

The successful ones are, yes. But what they do doesn't necessarily develop intelligence. Being a marathon runner makes you fit; being a critical thinker makes you intelligent. But being a marathon runner or a martial artist doesn't tend to make you substantially more intelligent, and being a skeptic doesn't make you more fit.

Playing a musical instrument will give you a better sense of pitch, and dancing will give you better balance. I could probably make a case that psychics become charismatic, because, like any confidence man, they need to develop charisma to make people believe their routine. And, of course, the same could be said of any stage magician....

[Garrette]

... and, of course, education can be quite impressive when spread among so many people. One of the things I like about the JREF community is that you can find a card-carrying expert about almost anything. Agreed.

he lawyers may not know much about history, and the historians may not know much about law --- Yeah, but just try to get 'em to admit it....

but the debates tend to bring out people's strengths, not their weaknesses.Emphasis on "tend."

[tkingdoll]

There's a lot more to be skeptical of than ghosties, and ghoulies, and things that go "bump" in the night.

- Alien Abductions
- Audiophile Myths
- Biased Jurisprudence
- Bigfoot
- Boobage Etiquette
- Chiropractic
- Fallacies of Reason
- Fraudulent Claims
- Free Energy
- Governmental Conspiracies
- Homeopathy
- Korean Fan Death
- Loch Ness Monster
- Prejudice
- Psychic Readings
- Religion/Politics
- Skepticism
- Urban Legends

... and the list goes on.

I suspect that most of the topics in that list, with the exception of the boobage, religion and politics, fraudulent claims, and prejudice register very low in the public conciousness as important or even relevant. Alt medicine is creeping up the scale I guess.

Not sure where I'm going with this thought though :D

That's probably another thread topic when I've worked out what I am thinking.

[Senex]

Yeah, we're just using different definitions of 'intelligent' - of course the public's perception of intelligent is something akin to 'that capacity that IQ measures' I think. Which is not the sort of intelligence you are describing at all but was how I read Senex's comment.


Young pretty women often misinterpret my comments. drkitten seems more than able to represent my beliefs on this thread going forward ;)

[Minarvia]

That's not intelligence, that's just education! :)

Thanks! I'll keep plugging away, then. :)

Carry on, good skeptics!

[tkingdoll]

Aren't psychics equally good at what they do, compared to a marathon runner or a martial artist?

Does this have anything to do with the OP? If it does, groovy and fab, but if not then please start a new topic cause I'd really like to keep this one on track if possible and I can see a big derail coming :boxedin:

[Garrette]

Carry on, good skeptics!What about us evil skeptics?

[tkingdoll]

edit

[Overman]

Once a paranormal claim has be 'debunked' it would significiant and impressive evidence to warrent further discussion.

Also,

'True Believers' and many of the people who are relevent to such paranormal fields are not interested in hearing reason or critical thinking methods. They can not be dissuaded with reason, which is all we have to argue with.

These two factors make dealing with many paranormal claims, bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, loch ness, psychics, The Bremuda Triangle, and many other 'woo' activities very difficult to debate.

I have, and always will, associated skeptics with critical thinking and science, which are some of the higher post counts here. I classify religion as paranormal, just a more relevant version for debate. The high post count in politics does not necessiarily mean that more people post there, but that people who post there post there more, politics naturally lends itself a back and forth conversation...

[ponderingturtle]

I wonder now how many people saw the words "Boobage Etiquette (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78610&highlight=boobage)" and immediately went looking for it?

Besides me... :o

Not me. I was reading that thread before this one.

As for the issue, well the conspiracy theory board seems active enough in current debunking. But really to have much of a discussion you need to have individuals with contrary view points. And so you will see threads pop up where individual proponents of something are supporting it, but how much discussion of some woo can you have with out a woo present?

So you get discussions about less clear cut things like political topics and the perennial favorite Teeks Boobs.

[Minarvia]

Specifically to this point, I think you are doing both yourself and this forum a disservice by not joining in more.

There are some highly intelligent people here and some highly informed ones. Frequently they are the same people but not always.

The majority of folks, however, are average in both intelligence and knowledge. If we stay silent because we don't feel up to par, then what we will soon end up with is a shrinking pool of increasingly egotistical elitists who find that in this small pool they are the never-caught big fish.

And sometimes those big fish are wrong.

If you read, you learn.

If you post, you learn more.

So post away and remember the personal attacks aren't personal after all.

---

And to tie that to the OP: I would suggest that the pattern of posting is not representative of skepticism in general. It is a self-selecting group comprising those who are outgoing (at least electronically) and possessing some level of expertise in a generally little known subject.

Good points, Garrette. I think I will take your advice and start getting my feet wet more. At worst people will see that I am well-meaning, even if not quite as well-learned. I joined JREF and lurked for months before I got a message asking me to begin by introducing myself in the Community Forum. I did that and finally came here. I'll bet there are lots more who have joined but haven't yet posted and others who are lurking. Maybe they will read this and come on in. They don't have to be closet skeptics.
Come on in, the water's fine! :)

As for subjects in the OP, I am beginning with the Paranormal because that is a common field of interest and there is much ado about it in the media these days, especially regarding so-called "psychic detectives" and "mediums."

[drkitten]

I have, and always will, associated skeptics with critical thinking and science, which are some of the higher post counts here. I classify religion as paranormal, just a more relevant version for debate. The high post count in politics does not necessiarily mean that more people post there, but that people who post there post there more, politics naturally lends itself a back and forth conversation...

It should also be noted that rational people can and do disagree about political issues. Science, empiricism, and reason are very good at telling us what is happening, but it's terrible about telling us what should be happening (no amount of data in the declarative will give us a conclusion in the imperative). The increasing obesity in the United States is a good example -- I don't think any sensible person denies it, but no one agrees how, or even whether, public resources should be deployed to "fix" it, or even what a "fix" is.

[CFLarsen]

I suspect that most of the topics in that list, with the exception of the boobage, religion and politics, fraudulent claims, and prejudice register very low in the public conciousness as important or even relevant. Alt medicine is creeping up the scale I guess.

And that's where we come in: To make people aware of how dangerous superstition is.

The successful ones are, yes. But what they do doesn't necessarily develop intelligence. Being a marathon runner makes you fit; being a critical thinker makes you intelligent. But being a marathon runner or a martial artist doesn't tend to make you substantially more intelligent, and being a skeptic doesn't make you more fit.

Playing a musical instrument will give you a better sense of pitch, and dancing will give you better balance. I could probably make a case that psychics become charismatic, because, like any confidence man, they need to develop charisma to make people believe their routine. And, of course, the same could be said of any stage magician....

Psychics develop their skills when they contact the dead cold read. But if that is called "intelligence", then we, as skeptics, cannot possibly tell people to work on their "intelligence".

Does this have anything to do with the OP? If it does, groovy and fab, but if not then please start a new topic cause I'd really like to keep this one on track if possible and I can see a big derail coming :boxedin:

Well, it has to do with how intelligence is viewed. I can't see it being used to describe psychics in any meaningful, positive way. Others disagree.

More about intelligence here. (http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq1.htm)





....did you just say "groovy" and "fab"?

That's not gear, that's grotty!

[tkingdoll]

Not me. I was reading that thread before this one.

As for the issue, well the conspiracy theory board seems active enough in current debunking. But really to have much of a discussion you need to have individuals with contrary view points. And so you will see threads pop up where individual proponents of something are supporting it, but how much discussion of some woo can you have with out a woo present?

So you get discussions about less clear cut things like political topics and the perennial favorite Teeks Boobs.

Hey! The Boobage Etiquette thread has nothing to do with me!

Sigh. Tarred forever :(

Yes, the conspiracy board seems to back up the 'fashion' theory - it will be interesting to track the interest in that sub-section along with the rise/fall of the conspiracy theories themselves.

[Garrette]

Claus, you seem to be suggesting that bad people can't have smarts.

If so, I am among those who disagree.

I will agree, however, that they do not--intelligent or unintelligent--represent the skeptical community.

[Overman]

Hey! The Boobage Etiquette thread has nothing to do with me!

Sigh. Tarred forever :(


Phew! I thought you were just mad at me the other day. Now I realize that it is everyone.

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you seem to be suggesting that bad people can't have smarts.

If so, I am among those who disagree.

I will agree, however, that they do not--intelligent or unintelligent--represent the skeptical community.

I don't. Some scammers are very intelligent. I was merely opposing the notion that intelligence-by-being-good-at-something is necessarily a good thing.

[Horatius]

I will add that magazines (and presumably SI does this) have an annual readership survey which gauges interest in particular topics and editorial sections, and magazine content is adjusted to reflect this. If SI doesn't do this, then it's a shame.

Just a point to mention - don't even know if it is relevant - the number of active Members here is a fraction of the number of people that "lurk".


I'm sure magazines do have surveys, but, as Darat mentions, there are "lurkers" out there, even for magazines. People who might pick up a copy of a magazine the one time they address Topic X probably aren't well-represented in such surveys, but tracking how many people click a link to read a topic here gives us a better handle on such things.

Also, we can see the people who de-lurk just to post a few comments on their preferred topics, who would also be missed in such a yearly survey.

So I think we get a better "snap-shot" of the current interests of skeptics. However, such interests might be fleeting, such as the latest woo on Oprah or Montel, while something like SI focuses on the "hard core woo" that persists longer.

[Garrette]

I don't. Some scammers are very intelligent. I was merely opposing the notion that intelligence-by-being-good-at-something is necessarily a good thing.My misunderstanding, then. I apparently missed where drkitten suggested it is a good thing in the manner you state here.

[ponderingturtle]

Hey! The Boobage Etiquette thread has nothing to do with me!

And I did not say that it did. Just that your boobs are a common topic of conversation. They are certainly not the only boobs that have been discussed on these forums, in either the figurative or literal sense

Sigh. Tarred forever :(
Well when you start threads about your boobs and are not related to your breast cancer scare, what do you expect?

Yes, the conspiracy board seems to back up the 'fashion' theory - it will be interesting to track the interest in that sub-section along with the rise/fall of the conspiracy theories themselves.

But it does mean that while say homeopathy is not a common topic for discussion, that no skeptical discussions are active. There are many in the conspiracy theory section.

[GodSend]

I'm counting on the probability that there are A LOT more lurkers than posters here! :)

[tkingdoll]

Well when you start threads about your boobs and are not related to your breast cancer scare, what do you expect?



Given that I've never done that, I can't really say what I'd expect.

But I'm derailing my own thread after asking Claus not to so I shall now simply ignore any comments you make that are not on-topic, thanks.

[Upchurch]

What about us evil skeptics?

Like all evil people, we have to go back to politics.

[ponderingturtle]

Given that I've never done that, I can't really say what I'd expect.


How much is the thread "The boobs are better" really about the lump though?

[Garrette]

How much is the thread "The boobs are better" really about the lump though?To save tkingdoll the trouble of responding:

From her point of view, probably all of it. Consider the context in which she was posting. Any celebration of her, her life, her breasts, was a cathartic exercise vis a vis the pent up fear of cancer.

[ponderingturtle]

So save tkingdoll the trouble of responding:

From her point of view, probably all of it. Consider the context in which she was posting. Any celebration of her, her life, her breasts, was a cathartic exercise vis a vis the pent up fear of cancer.

But putting it that way after other people had started threads like KittyNH's "Happy Boobday" thread?

[Garrette]

But putting it that way after other people had started threads like KittyNH's "Happy Boobday" thread?I'm not here to defend tkingdoll's entire posting history. It is possible you are right. It is possible (more possible, imo) you are wrong.

In either case, I don't want to participate in the derail any longer, so I'll bow out of this part of the discussion, too.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not here to defend tkingdoll's entire posting history. It is possible you are right. It is possible (more possible, imo) you are wrong.

In either case, I don't want to participate in the derail any longer, so I'll bow out of this part of the discussion, too.

The thing is that the number of other threads about teeks boobs between that thread and the breast cancer one, it is difficult to see it as not at least partially playing to the general point that we are frequently discussion her breasts.

If it was entirely in that intent, then it should be clear how it could encourage the perception of how she likes having her breasts talked about to an extent.

If it really is something that bugs her then I would try to stop making reference to them. But her reaction to such threads has not been solely from the view that they are unwanted attention.

[Z]

While I don't know if the forum is representative of the skeptical community as a whole, I do think (personal opinion) that it is a fairly accurate representation of what topics have greater public interest at any given time. People don't usually come here discussing the pyramids or moon men becaues that's just not in the public eye at the moment. Things like ghosts and UFOs have moved into a grey realm where most people have some belief, but are willing to leave the topic alone because there's really no good information one way or another.

So what it seems we get in here now are the HOT topics - Christianity, 9/11, Intelligent Design, commercial psychics. Homeopathy had a recent heyday here, but from what I can tell, the public IS getting better informed and more skeptical of this magic cure-water that doesn't work - so the topic has largely died out here.

I think religion gets a lot of attention right now, because it's flailing in deep water. Sure, more people are proclaiming to be religious than in the recent past, but the depth of their faith seems to be far more shallow. Almost no one is willing to go to arms over their faith - and most churches have been moving steadily to a more secular view of religion. Our parents' time was one where getting excommunicated might have been the end of the world; but in our time, that seems more like a nuisance than an actual problem to Catholics. And most church goers, if they were to be ostracized from their family church, would just find another. And people WANT to think they belong to something solid, so seeing their churches crumble apart in the light of scientific discovery, internal church contraversy, etc. is very frightening - so a handful wind up here, trying desperately to score SOME points for their losing team.

Intelligent Design is appealing as a topic just because evolution is so badly misunderstood, and it's a topic that plays into the fear above.

I think public psychics are going to reach a crescendo soon too - especially if Rob is successful and Sylvia goes down. By this time in 2009, we'll probably not be discussing her at all.

But that's just my opinion, really.

So if you look at the topics that get the most coverage here, I'd say it's less representative of the skeptical community, as it is of the state of the general populations' interest in such topics.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Ah, but the people in the Philosophy Department are brought together by a common profession. Of course they aren't going to discuss it at a party, they do it all day for a job.

Heh. Heh. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.

Wow, that was pretty funny.

Teek, my love, remind me to take you to an astronomy party when you are next in the States. And also remind me to tell you the tale of how I almost missed out on the true love of my life -- now Mrs. BA -- when I lectured to her about hypocycloids and planetary nebulae at a party.

[CFLarsen]

Heh. Heh. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.

Wow, that was pretty funny.

Teek, my love, remind me to take you to an astronomy party when you are next in the States. And also remind me to tell you the tale of how I almost missed out on the true love of my life -- now Mrs. BA -- when I lectured to her about hypocycloids and planetary nebulae at a party.

Pfui. Pfui, I say. Or, as it were, sputter.

Don't ever party with mainframe people.

Or E.R. nurses.

Never party with E.R. nurses. The stories they tell...

[Horatius]

Or E.R. nurses.

Never party with E.R. nurses. The stories they tell...



My mother was an OR nurse. If I can sit through dinner with her, a party would be a cake walk.

[CFLarsen]

My mother was an OR nurse. If I can sit through dinner with her, a party would be a cake walk.

Your mother doesn't get drunk a lot, does she? ;)

Drunk E.R. nurses....they are the worst....

[Baron Samedi]

Your mother doesn't get drunk a lot, does she? ;)

Drunk E.R. nurses....they are the worst....

Drunken ER stories are worse than drunken JCL coding stories?

[tkingdoll]

Heh. Heh. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.

Wow, that was pretty funny.

Teek, my love, remind me to take you to an astronomy party when you are next in the States. And also remind me to tell you the tale of how I almost missed out on the true love of my life -- now Mrs. BA -- when I lectured to her about hypocycloids and planetary nebulae at a party.

NERD!

I will take you up on the party offer though.

[RSLancastr]

...and being a skeptic doesn't make you more fit.Well, that explains a lot. :(

[Fnord]

I'll never again party with:

- British Marines. If you pass out, they don't just play a prank on you, they make it a rude and nasty prank. Then they take pictures.

- Police Officers. Handcuffs, tasers, batons ... need I say more?

- Franciscan nuns on holiday. Once they get back to the convent, they will want to "know" you again only in the familiar sense.

- An election team for a certain governor of Cal-ee-four-nee-ah. He may be back, but I won't.

I would love to party again with a bunch of 30-something, woo-woo women. They'll believe anything you tell them...

[tkingdoll]

I'll never again party with:

- British Marines. If you pass out, they don't just play a prank on you, they make it a rude and nasty prank. Then they take pictures.

- Police Officers. Handcuffs, tasers, batons ... need I say more?

- Franciscan nuns on holiday. Once they get back to the convent, they will want to "know" you again only in the familiar sense.

- An election team for a certain governor of Cal-ee-four-nee-ah. He may be back, but I won't.

I would love to party again with a bunch of 30-something, woo-woo women. They'll believe anything you tell them...

The worst gig I ever did was at a police party. They just talked all the way through, it was a nightmare. I yelled at them at one point then realised there was no-one to call if I got beat up :D

[Wowbagger]

So is this forum representative of the larger skeptic world? There are thousands of skeptics out there reading skeptical magazines and going to events who do not use this message board.
I would say it is a good sampling of the larger skeptical world. The ratio of "arm chair" scientists to actual, professional scientists is still far in favor of the "arm chairs". So, I would not claim the forum is representative of the real scientific community.
But, for the skeptical community, we got something for everyone!

[Apathia]

What a dull place this would be if it were limited to boring debunkings of the paranormal. I come here because it's a community.

[malbui]

<derail>

- British Marines. If you pass out, they don't just play a prank on you, they make it a rude and nasty prank. Then they take pictures.


I once had a few beers with some RMs who were doing some mountain training and ended up naked on a snooker table. I was very, very drunk at the time.

</derail>

[CFLarsen]

Drunken ER stories are worse than drunken JCL coding stories?

Yes. There's not a lot of blood and gore in JCL stories.

[chillzero]

What a dull place this would be if it were limited to boring debunkings of the paranormal. I come here because it's a community.

I agree.
We have several non-skeptics here who come to defend their particular corner, or to join in the general converrsation elsewhere.

I come here to converse with people who can actually think clearly through an issue or question, and not have to relate it to whatever Britney Spears is currently doing.

I belong to 2 other skeptic forums, and one of those is basically defunct at the moment, not sure why, but the other regularly involves posts that I can't quite get to the bottom of because of the scientific terminology. I sympathise with previous posters in this thread who said they feel intimidated by the experience and credentials of others. However, I feel that intimidation less here, and there are regularly other posters who will rephrase things in a manner that I can understand without any scientific qualifications (except stats threads - total turn-off, I don't get it :) ).

I like it that many posters here understand that scientist and skeptic are not remotely the same thing.

[brodski]

I yelled at them at one point then realised there was no-one to call if I got beat up :D

Other than Tony Clarke, Harry Naylor and Maureen Connell (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103362/maindetails) that is... ;)

[Garrette]

Never party with E.R. nurses. The stories they tell...Oh, I truly beg to differ. The stress that nurses in general and ER nurses in particular need to relieve makes them quite memorable partiers, particularly when it is a party of two.

Then again it helps that I have worked security in the ERs and morgues and so am already familiar with the stories and not bothered by them.

I will tell you, however, NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER piss off an ER nurse on whom you are relying for treatment. Particularly if that treatment involves a catheter. Oh, the things I've seen....

[deBergerac]

Just some of my own ideas on the topic and comments to other people’s ideas:

No, I do not think this forum is representative of sceptics.
Why would I be hanging here if the forum of the Swedish sceptics were equally interesting?
Sceptical organisations are usually dominated by people from academia (old, white and male) unlike this forum. There are of course a lot of academics here and all the rest, but I do not think that the percentage is even close to what you find in many sceptical organisations.
And, as have been pointed out, there are sceptics in other parts of the world than the US and the UK. The interesting thing is that quite a lot of sceptics from other countries than the above mentioned have found their way to this forum. Unfortunately I do not see many other places where sceptics can meet other sceptics on an international level.

I think that in many sceptical organisations the focus is on debunking paranormal claims, perhaps some conspiracy theories now and then, because sceptics tend to agree about those things. If you have a meeting once a month there is not much sense to have a political discussion on the program since that is not what people come for.

On a forum on the other hand, having an intelligent discussion about topics that is not traditionally associated with scepticism has a place. The discussion can be about politics or “anatomy” or something else, and discussed seriously or perhaps not that seriously. This is all a part of the community spirit.

Of course the reason a topic can be discussed is that there is no answer, unlike many paranormal claims. Say dowsing and all sceptics reply ideomotor effect – end of discussion. (I am talking about discussions among sceptics now.)
If there is no disagreement there is not much use in talking about a particular wooism. But if someone needs any specific information on a certain type of woo it is likely that someone here is an expert.

Fashion in fads and the impossibility to convert a true believer may actually be worth thinking about.
So what if we discuss what is in the media more than other things? I trust there is no rule that UFOs must be discussed just as much as mediums talking to the dead.
Sceptics should not separate themselves from the rest of the world thus it is only naturally that we discuss what most other people discuss. This is good, since people that are undecided about what they hear in the media can by chance come to this forum and find something to think about.
There will always be true UFO believers but the number of people on the fence change with the media exposure the question gets. Discussing the current fad of woo more than other things is thus something good.

My comparison is only between this forum and the few sceptical organisations that I know about. It is difficult to know who the sceptics are that are not members of a forum or members of any sceptical organisation.



But that, of course, is exactly what "skepticism" is. When presented with a datum, the first question a skeptic should ask is "Is it true? How could I find out wheher or not it's true?"



Should not the first question be “is this relevant?” If it is not relevant for the discussion the question of the truth or falseness of the datum seem unimportant.

[SusanB-M1]

Even with just the limited number of MB sites I visit regularly (BBC and GH), I would say that, yes, this one is representative of sceptics. The many links to sceptic articles and so on help to broaden the range of views.

I found JREF by googling for MBs and on the index of 'most used world-wide' sites, which I went through to see what they were like, this one stood out as definitely the strongest.
I think I'm averagely sceptical...well, no, definitely on the 'strong sceptic' side ... but it is so refreshing to see the no-nonsense opinions expressed here; and because these views are from a world-wide group, I think it is encouraging and hopeful for the future. The sceptical views being also applied to all the different boards is likewise positive. (I do not follow the conspiracy or Politics forums!)

[SRW]

What brings me back to this place again and again is the educational aspect of it. Ask just about any question and you will get five of six great answers followed by, depending on the subject, a whole bunch of support humor or if you want it a good argument. I don't know of any place else where you get the wide range of knowledge along with the diverse skeptic views.

[Senex]

oops, please disregard.

[Cuddles]

The important word in "skeptical community" is "community". I came here because of skeptical discussions, but if that was all there was I wouldn't have stayed long. When it comes down to it, things like dowsing and homeopathy have been debunked as much as is possible. If that was all people here talked about the forum probably wouldn't exist any more since, barring the occasional event like PEAR closing, nothing would ever happen. Stop the press! Homeopathy still doesn't work! It is like any other community, people come here because they have some sort of interest in common, but once together the original interest is not all they talk about. Life would be pretty boring if I only talked about physics at work and only talked about kayaking at my kayak club. I don't think it is anything to do with the age of participants or the format of an intenet forum or anything else. If you put a group of people together they will talk about stuff.

As for whether it is actually representative, I don't see why not. People come here because of some interest in something skeptical or wooish, which is presumably exactly the same reason people buy magazines or whatever. I think the only real difference is that people here are likely to be more casually interested. I would never go out looking for magazines and things, but I am happy to post on here occasionally when I feel like it, and I assume that many people are the same. If you look at membership of magazines as opposed to free forums I expect you will find that they are much more interested and much more serious about the things they look at than most people on here. However, I think it is the JREF that is more representative of skeptics as a whole because of that.

[kmortis]

Yes. There's not a lot of blood and gore in JCL stories.

I have to side with Claus here (did I REALLY just say that?). I used to have a boss who, in a previous career, was an ER nurse at Johns Hopkins. The stories he'd tell SOBER could make your skin crawl.

baby spiders.....<shiver>

To Teek's OP, I think we do attract a decent segment of the entire "skeptical community". More importantly, I think this forum has been nigh-instrumental in gelling that community. From listening to the Olde Tymers here and elsewhere, there'd never really been much of a skeptical community. Phrases like "herding cats" keep cropping up when that concept is discussed. I don't think that it's JREF, per se that created the community, just gave a venue for it to come together.

[CFLarsen]

I have to side with Claus here (did I REALLY just say that?).

You did. They all succumb, sooner or later.

(sound of evil laughter, echoing down the dark corridors....)

I used to have a boss who, in a previous career, was an ER nurse at Johns Hopkins. The stories he'd tell SOBER could make your skin crawl.

baby spiders.....<shiver>

That's nothing. Never eat before you talk to drunk nurses.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think part of what's going on is that paranormal topics have been done to death. We've discussed them all. Three or four times. And many of them are so pathetic that they don't warrant much discussion. Crop circles* and chemtrails come to mind.

As soon as there is a new paranormal claim, we'll be all over it.

~~ Paul

* The crop circles themselves are beautiful, of course.

[CFLarsen]

I think part of what's going on is that paranormal topics have been done to death. We've discussed them all. Three or four times. And many of them are so pathetic that they don't warrant much discussion. Crop circles* and chemtrails come to mind.

As soon as there is a new paranormal claim, we'll be all over it.

I concur. It's been quite some time since I heard of something entirely new. Something that hasn't been beaten to death a gazillion times.

It's probably a good thing: Is there any paranormal or supernatural claim we haven't very sound explanations for?

But...sometimes...I long for fresh meat. Something that will challenge me.

* The crop circles themselves are beautiful, of course.

Crop circles is a new art form. Really: What can't be depicted, big scale? We got GoogleEarth, the possibilities seem endless. Art on a global scale! Christo, go suck your parasol.

And a hell of a way to market your product. I'm waiting for the mega-companies to buy up land near airports, merely to plant crops and then have crop artists come in and produce some fantastic visual ads.

[Cuddles]

That's nothing. Never eat before you talk to drunk nurses.

Try growing up with a surgeon at the dinner table every day.

[John Jackson]

Try growing up with a surgeon at the dinner table every day.


I bet the roast was beautifully carved though. :D