re: "skeptical movement"

[T'ai Chi]

I've received plenty of emails from uninformed people questioning my benign and factual use of the words "skeptical movement".

I'm sure some dogmatically perceive it as an insult because they want to believe that only believers have movements or something, or only non-skeptic clubs and organizations can truly be organized, or even that only relgious things can have leaders, charismatics, or gurus.

In any case, I thought I'd show some places where "skeptical movement" was used by high-profile leaders of the movement (there are many, many examples of more ordinary people in the movement using the words):

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
http://skepdic.com/refuge/getinvolved.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n6_v55/ai_17529302
http://randi.org/hotline/1992/0005.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/091302.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/11-24-2000.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html
http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0053.html (even talks about organization, lol)
http://www.randi.org/jr/100402.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html
http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101002.htm
http://williamcalvin.com/2002/TavrisArticle.htm

Just a small sampling.

[clerihew80]

I have to agree with T'ai Chi. I see nothing wrong with using the term "organized skeptical movement" to refer to the activities of The Skeptics Society, CSICOP, JREF, etc.

I suppose people who assumed they were just posting a few comments on a website were offended by the imputation of de facto membership in said movement.

[Apathia]

I for one welcome our new sceptical organizers.

[Mobyseven]

In all seriousness, I don't think T'ai Chi is entirely wrong, but not entirely correct either.

There are currently skeptical organisations, true, but they don't really operate in the same way as other 'movements' do.

After all, this isn't the JRSF, it's the JREF. The issues that are touched on here are broader than just skepticism - there is politics, science in general, and of course a lively dose of humor.

Skepticism is a way of thinking, a way of analysing information presented to you in a critical way. As such, I don't see places like the JREF forums as a 'movement' of any sort. The forums are run by an educational foundation that highly values skepticism, and as such th majority of the people here are skeptics - but the people on the forums are not 'organised' in any recognisable fashion. We are simply people who have been given a place to chat, debate, and so on - and due to the nature of the forum we are largely skeptics.

Sure, there are events that are organised - TAM, for example, and the occasional dinner or whatnot. But I don't think you can really say that that makes us a movement.

Just my 2¥.

Mobyseven

[ReligionStudent]

Maybe there are organizations, but not everyone is in CSICOP etc. Many people who consider themselves skeptics, athiests, etc are completely unaffiliated with such groups.

As for a movement. There is not an overall goal or any system of organization for the larger group. I think that certain people, such as Mr. Randi, using such terms does not mean they apply to everyone who is a skeptic, or even everyone on the JREF boards.

I do not dislike the term because I want to be special or somthing, but because it is not a movement to me, skeptic and scientific aproaches are tools to do my job. But I am a member of AAR. hovever, I don't think the American Academy of Religion, or the affiliated Society of Biblical Literature, is a skeptic organization or movement.

[CFLarsen]

I've received plenty of emails from uninformed people questioning my benign and factual use of the words "skeptical movement".

And here is how you use it yourself: The Chronology of T'ai Chi's "Organized Skeptical Movement" claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68791)

I'm sure some dogmatically perceive it as an insult

.....you don't use it as an insult?

because they want to believe that only believers have movements or something,

Whatever gave you that idea?

or only non-skeptic clubs and organizations can truly be organized,

Whatever gave you that idea?

or even that only relgious things can have leaders, charismatics, or gurus.

Whatever gave you that idea?

In any case, I thought I'd show some places where "skeptical movement" was used by high-profile leaders of the movement (there are many, many examples of more ordinary people in the movement using the words):

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html

Where, in this document, is "skeptical movement" used?

Just a small sampling.

Yet, some of your links are before you yourself have claimed there was such a "skeptical movement".

You are not that comfortable around evidence, are you?

[athon]

I don't think it makes much of a difference. The word 'movement' would require precise defining, and I don't think anybody uses it in this precise way.

I'd understand that any group of people who perceive and encourage the same outcomes of change towards a system would be a 'movement', therefore there could well be considered a skeptical movement. Does everybody skeptical belong to it? No; not all skeptics believe that there needs to be changes to a system (either political, educational, bureaucratic...etc.). But they would be in a minority I believe.

However some individuals use the word movement to imply more than shared desires in change, but suggest overtones of structure and coordination. I rarely address their connotations of such a thing unless they are explicit, lest the person making the suggestion plays games of semantics and slinks back from the notion that they ever meant such a thing. However skeptical groups and organisations rarely demonstrate any real plan or influence of change that goes beyond desire. There is no lobbying, no organised petitions...rarely much more than individuals who might encourage others to follow similar veins of action. This, therefore, is hardly the level movement often implied by those cynical towards skepticism.

In other words, the term movement has no real consequence. It depends on why the individual choose that word in the first place.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

It's seldom 'a movement' or 'this movement' or 'that movement' it is always 'the movement'. That's the only problem I have, referecing skepticism like it has a unified or singular agenda when the only accurate way to refer to a movement would be to refer to single or multiple groups out of the many seperate and often disconnected groups that exist.

(Periods are expensive nowadays, one must conserve)

[Dunstan]

It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll)

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.

[athon]

It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll)

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.


It's the lack of committing statements which I find most cowardly. The veil of pretence over subtle musings...such as with his statements of 'interesting' which does little to fool anybody who has seen more than a couple of his posts.

Tai Chi, if you had something of substance to say, I might have more respect. But standing on the sidelines with one-liner quips that never really tease apart anything carries nothing of merit.

Athon

[Dunstan]

It's the lack of committing statements which I find most cowardly. The veil of pretence over subtle musings...such as with his statements of 'interesting' which does little to fool anybody who has seen more than a couple of his posts.


Well, that's just it. People here showed a grudging respect for Interesting Ian, hammagek (sp?), and Hunster, because they would state their views and defend them (with varying degrees of success).

T'ai, on the other hand, continues to play coy about what he believes. I have to give him credit, in a way. It's not hard to be brave on the internet, but it's a real challenge to be that cowardly.

[Zep]

He's not interesting enough to make me sick.



Don't know who said that, but it applies here.

[Checkmite]

And I still disagree that there is a skeptical "movement". There are skeptical organizations which work toward promoting critical thinking, certainly; but there are also charitable organizations which promote charitable giving, and nobody refers to them as "the charity movement".

[T'ai Chi]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

[athon]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

I've posted on topic. Once again, you ignore it in offer of a single line response that doesn't really address anything.

If you're upset by it, demonstrate otherwise. If you're not upset by it, why address a post in which I comment on your behaviour in deference to one which is on topic?

Athon

[bob_dezon]

You dont need a sceptical movment, a movement only travels so far and then stops. What you need is a sceptical revolution, so it keeps coming back again and again.

[John Jackson]

I tend to find that phrases like "organised skeptical movement" are used as a euphemism for "cult" akin to calling Scientology an "organised religious movement".

But apart from that tactic, the fact that skeptics organise themselves into groups and try to educate (or whatever) is a complete non-issue.

There are organised skeptcs' groups, as well as there are organised groups with all sorts of differing aims and interests in all walks of life. So what? It's not actually a position we need to defend.

This is just an attempt to create a controversial issue out of nothing and if we try to defend ourselves we just end up playing into the propagandists' hands as by defending ourselves against the accusation it confirms that the issue exists.

[Mojo]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities."T'ai Chi", "Statisticool", "JZS", "whodini", whoever you are, why don't you respond to posts that address the topic?

[Czarcasm]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

O.K., try this on for size.
If there is a "Skeptical Movement", are you a part of it, or do you oppose it?

[Ladewig]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

The fact that you claimed your usage of the term to be benign means that your motives are relavent to the topic. Dunstan and Athon see through your game and are correct to call you on it.

[Moochie]

IIn other words, the term movement has no real consequence. It depends on why the individual choose that word in the first place.

Athon

Even more hilarious is the notion of "leaders" of this "movement."

When one considers who it is that is using these terms to describe people of a skeptical bent, it all falls into place.

M.

[Moochie]

It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll)

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.

Excellent post, Dunstan, and thanks for the link. We do have our share of such trolls here: Mr. Randi/Mr. Dawkins alienate believers in woo by their gruff manner; skeptics are too closed minded, therefore no one takes them seriously; the skeptical movement/organization/evil cabal is coming for your daughters, and so on.

Slapping them around occasionally is an amusing pastime. No doubt about that at all. :D

M.

[Mr. Skinny]

It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll)

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.
Dunstan, thank you for putting a name on, and defining, T'ai Chi's behavior.

T'ai Chi, what's it like to be part of the "organized concern troll movement"?

[wahrheit]

Even more hilarious is the notion of "leaders" of this "movement."


Plus the "gurus" of The MovementTM T'ai Chi mentions in his opening post. Just plain dumb.

ETA: I'd like to second the usage of the term "troll" when talking about opening posts like this and/or T'ai Chi. He wants it this way, it seems.

[jon]

I'd also note that in the OP Tai Chi claims that "believers have movements", whereas he seems to want to talk about a sceptical movement (singular). Wouldn't it be better to argue that there are lots of sceptical movements and movements which are sceptical: I don't think talking about a (singular) sceptical movement is particularly helpful.

For example, I'm involved in running a blog which takes a sceptical look at certain health/nutrition claims. I've been lucky to have quite a few people offer to help out with this - some would probably describe themselves as sceptical, others are interested in this area for other reasons. So you get a website that is sceptical, and that several sceptics have helped with, but which isn't (entirely) part of a sceptical movement.

[Mobyseven]

I don't think it makes much of a difference. The word 'movement' would require precise defining, and I don't think anybody uses it in this precise way.

I'd understand that any group of people who perceive and encourage the same outcomes of change towards a system would be a 'movement', therefore there could well be considered a skeptical movement. Does everybody skeptical belong to it? No; not all skeptics believe that there needs to be changes to a system (either political, educational, bureaucratic...etc.). But they would be in a minority I believe.

However some individuals use the word movement to imply more than shared desires in change, but suggest overtones of structure and coordination. I rarely address their connotations of such a thing unless they are explicit, lest the person making the suggestion plays games of semantics and slinks back from the notion that they ever meant such a thing. However skeptical groups and organisations rarely demonstrate any real plan or influence of change that goes beyond desire. There is no lobbying, no organised petitions...rarely much more than individuals who might encourage others to follow similar veins of action. This, therefore, is hardly the level movement often implied by those cynical towards skepticism.

In other words, the term movement has no real consequence. It depends on why the individual choose that word in the first place.

Athon
It's very simple. T'ai Chi is a quasi-concern troll. For those not familiar with the term, a "concern troll" is one who comments on a forum or blog and purports to share the purpose of the organization, but is "concerned" that its message is being hampered by [insert facts that supposedly hurt the cause] Wikipedia definition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll)

T'ai Chi doesn't quite go the full nine yards of declaring himself a member of, or an opponent of, the "Organized Skeptical Movement." He intentionally keeps its definition vague, and flip-flops on whether he is a member of this movement. Thus he is able (he thinks) to throw mud at folks here without coming out of the closet and staking out a position that he would have to defend.

Hence the occasional thread like this, in which he woundedly declares "skeptical movement? Why, here's one!" But he entirely fails to address the questions that people have posed to him, i.e. what is the skeptical movement, what are its goals, is he a member or an opponent, etc.

It's fun to slap him around every now and then; just don't make the mistake of taking him seriously.

Athon, Dunstan, those are two posts I sincerely wish that I had written. Kudo to you.

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

T'ai Chi, Athon and Dunstan have raised valid points. It is time for you to step up to the plate and address said points. Your one line answer does not do this.

[strathmeyer]

Is a skeptical movement like a ghost poo?

[blutoski]

There is no lobbying, no organised petitions...

I'm not sure if that's true. CFI has a fulltime lobbyist in Washington, and petitions to educational boards organized by Skeptical organizations are common. Especially wrt the teaching of creationism.

[Yeah_Right]

T'ai Chi, and if there are skeptical organizations, so what?

[clerihew80]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. An "organized movement" isn't necessarily a bad thing. The civil rights movement, for example, was undoubtedly a good thing.

there are also charitable organizations which promote charitable giving, and nobody refers to them as "the charity movement".
Well, "charity" is a much more inclusive term than "skepticism." Now, if a subset of those charities works towards, say, AIDS awareness, you could say there's an "AIDS awareness movement."

[ReligionStudent]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. An "organized movement" isn't necessarily a bad thing. The civil rights movement, for example, was undoubtedly a good thing.


Well, "charity" is a much more inclusive term than "skepticism." Now, if a subset of those charities works towards, say, AIDS awareness, you could say there's an "AIDS awareness movement."

Yes, but I think the issue is the blanket inclusion of all skepticly minded individuals or all posters on this board, or some other arbitrary group as being in a large skeptical movement. I don't feal I am, I am just a skeptic, just like I am a right handed individual, that does not mean I am in a right handed movement.


DOWN WITH LEFTIES

[clerihew80]

Yes, but I think the issue is the blanket inclusion of all skepticly minded individuals or all posters on this board, or some other arbitrary group as being in a large skeptical movement. I don't feal I am, I am just a skeptic, just like I am a right handed individual, that does not mean I am in a right handed movement.
Right-handedness is more arbitrary than skepticism. But say there were right-handed groups whose purpose was to educate the public about the right-handed way of thinking (whatever that is!). Say these groups maintained a media presence, published magazines, gave speeches and lectures, organized social events, were openly critical of left-handers and their agenda, and had websites. This would constitute a Right-handed movement, I should say. Now, if you were visiting these websites, reading the magazines, keeping up with the latest news, proudly proclaiming your right-handedness, communicating with/debating fellow right-handers in online forums etc. - wouldn't that make you at least a supporter of the movement?

[ReligionStudent]

Right-handedness is more arbitrary than skepticism. But say there were right-handed groups whose purpose was to educate the public about the right-handed way of thinking (whatever that is!). Say these groups maintained a media presence, published magazines, gave speeches and lectures, organized social events, were openly critical of left-handers and their agenda, and had websites. This would constitute a Right-handed movement, I should say. Now, if you were visiting these websites, reading the magazines, keeping up with the latest news, proudly proclaiming your right-handedness, communicating with/debating fellow right-handers in online forums etc. - wouldn't that make you at least a supporter of the movement?

Well, I study at a seminary, read religious publications, learn languages to read religious books, take part in debate and publications, attend conferences, but I am not part of any religious movement.

[clerihew80]

Well, I study at a seminary, read religious publications, learn languages to read religious books, take part in debate and publications, attend conferences, but I am not part of any religious movement.
I suppose it depends on how one defines "member," then. Based on your activities, someone else might consider you part of a religious movement, even if you don't.

We're not used to thinking of well-established religions (I'm assuming you're at a Christian seminary) as movements, but really, if they're trying to grow and recruit new members and increase their presence, as most denominations are, they are essentially still movements.

[ReligionStudent]

I suppose it depends on how one defines "member," then. Based on your activities, someone else might consider you part of a religious movement, even if you don't.

We're not used to thinking of well-established religions (I'm assuming you're at a Christian seminary) as movements, but really, if they're trying to grow and recruit new members and increase their presence, as most denominations are, they are essentially still movements.

Both Christian and Jewish seminaries, but I doubt anyone would call an atheist part of a religious movement.

[clerihew80]

Both Christian and Jewish seminaries, but I doubt anyone would call an atheist part of a religious movement.
Ah, see, I suspected you weren't really religious but you didn't make that clear. Now, obviously, if you don't subscribe to the movement's core beliefs or better yet are actually opposed to them, you can't be a member of that particular movement. But I'm assuming you do subscribe to the principle tenets of skepticism, otherwise you wouldn't call yourself a skeptic. So, really, your attendance at seminary is a completely different situation from your skepticism. You're active within what I'm calling the Skeptical movement because you believe in the philosophy or way of thinking about evidence or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure why you're connected with Christian and Jewish seminaries, but it must be for different reasons. I still see no reason why I shouldn't call you a supporter, and thus a peripheral member at the very least, of the Skeptical movement.

[ReligionStudent]

Ah, see, I suspected you weren't really religious but you didn't make that clear. Now, obviously, if you don't subscribe to the movement's core beliefs or better yet are actually opposed to them, you can't be a member of that particular movement. But I'm assuming you do subscribe to the principle tenets of skepticism, otherwise you wouldn't call yourself a skeptic. So, really, your attendance at seminary is a completely different situation from your skepticism. You're active within what I'm calling the Skeptical movement because you believe in the philosophy or way of thinking about evidence or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure why you're connected with Christian and Jewish seminaries, but it must be for different reasons. I still see no reason why I shouldn't call you a supporter, and thus a peripheral member at the very least, of the Skeptical movement.

tennents of skepticism? This is something of my point, skepticism simply a method or at the very most a methodology, not a world view. I think the movement associated with it is different than actual skepticism, which may just be an outlook different people have in common. The goals of so called skeptic movement might include teaching about skepticism or working towards politics based on skeptical and scientific methods, but those goals are different than the actual simple methogalogical use of skepticism.

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it so important that there not be an "organized skeptical movement"?

[ReligionStudent]

well there can be one, I simply think that defining every skeptically minded individual or everyone that posts on JREF boards or reads skeptic magazines etc as a member is too broad, and that that people define themselves as members, and not their actions/beliefs.

[quixotecoyote]

Why is it so important that there not be an "organized skeptical movement"?

First, because there isn't, and reality is important.

Second, it must be protested because certain people use the idea that we have ulterior motives as part of a skeptical movement to commit posion well fallacies.

[mijopaalmc]

Well, one might want to review the sociological definition of social movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement):
Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.

[ReligionStudent]

Well, one might want to review the sociological definition of social movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement):

But we are not members of formal or informal skeptical groups focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.

[clerihew80]

tennents of skepticism? This is something of my point, skepticism simply a method or at the very most a methodology, not a world view.
Well, the central tenet of skepticism is to require sufficient evidence before accepting a claim. I never said that skepticism was a "world view," however you want to define that.

I think the movement associated with it is different than actual skepticism, which may just be an outlook different people have in common.
I agree. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who are non-religious, who reject the supernatural - who think astrology, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathy, etc. are all bunk - but who have never heard of James Randi or Skeptic magazine. They simply reject these and other claims intuitively for lack of evidence, and don't give it much thought beyond that. I wouldn't call these people members of the Skeptical movement, even though technically they are Skeptics. But if you're here in this forum it may be because you think the skeptical message is important and worth educating the general public about (or you're like Tai Chi and you want to debate/antagonize skeptics). This is the basis of skeptical activism as opposed to just plain skepticism.

[ReligionStudent]

Well, the central tenet of skepticism is to require sufficient evidence before accepting a claim. I never said that skepticism was a "world view," however you want to define that.


I agree. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who are non-religious, who reject the supernatural - who think astrology, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathy, etc. are all bunk - but who have never heard of James Randi or Skeptic magazine. They simply reject these and other claims intuitively for lack of evidence, and don't give it much thought beyond that. I wouldn't call these people members of the Skeptical movement, even though technically they are Skeptics. But if you're here in this forum it may be because you think the skeptical message is important and worth educating the general public about (or you're like Tai Chi and you want to debate/antagonize skeptics). This is the basis of skeptical activism as opposed to just plain skepticism. Or one could be here for entertainment, education, or discussion. This site is not exactly a place where a lot of people come to educate the general public, its more of a place to preach to the quire or to the woo woos, not the general public though.

I certainly am not here for activism, and I think a lot of other people are not either.

[mijopaalmc]

But we are not members of formal or informal skeptical groups

There are, however, many skeptical organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skeptics_and_skeptical_organizations#Skept ic_organizations). Just because posters here do not necessarily belong to any of these organizations doesn't mean that such organizations don't exist, which seems to be the response to T'ai Chi's straw man of the "organized skeptical movement" (note the singular). I do not mean to imply that all skeptical organizations hold the same beliefs about all issues. Nonetheless, skeptical organizations do engage in social activities (e.g., About CSI (http://www.csicop.org/about/) and "The Amazing Meeting (http://www.randi.org/amazingmeeting/)").

[clerihew80]

This site is not exactly a place where a lot of people come to educate the general public,
But do you think it's important that the general public be educated about skepticism? And do you learn things here that you can use to spread the skeptical message in your everyday life? I know that, talking with co-workers, I often bring up things that I've read about on this site. This is a form of education, since otherwise they might never hear about the outrages of, say, Sylvia Browne.

I certainly am not here for activism, and I think a lot of other people are not either.
Do you support the activities of James Randi? Because Randi is the very definition of an activist skeptic.

[CFLarsen]

First, because there isn't, and reality is important.

Second, it must be protested because certain people use the idea that we have ulterior motives as part of a skeptical movement to commit posion well fallacies.

Or, as T'ai Chi does, dismiss skepticism out of hand because of what a couple of skeptics are doing that T'ai Chi finds criticizable.

That's all it is: A crude attempt of dismissing skepticism altogether. The amazing thing is that T'ai Chi actually thinks he is making headway.

Not very bright.

[ReligionStudent]

But do you think it's important that the general public be educated about skepticism? And do you learn things here that you can use to spread the skeptical message in your everyday life? I know that at work, talking with co-workers, I often bring up things that I've read about on this site. This is a form of education, since otherwise they might never hear about the outrages of, say, Sylvia Browne. My discussions do not make me part of a movement, it is social interaction. I discuss knitting or archaeological discoveries, but that does not make me part of a movement. To say that education is my goal in these concersations is false.


Do you support the activities of James Randi? Because Randi is the very definition of an activist skeptic. Just because you agree with someone or like their stance does not link you to them in a movement.

[CFLarsen]

"athon", "dunstan", whoever you are, let's stick to the topic and not to personalities.

Let's.

Where, in this document (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html), is "skeptical movement" used?

[Zep]

Do you support the activities of James Randi? Because Randi is the very definition of an activist skeptic.No he isn't. He's just a very highly publicised one.

But then you could say the same for Dawkins. Or Sagan and Feynman when they were alive. Or the MythBusters now. But were/are they all the very definition of "activist skeptics"? I doubt it.

[mijopaalmc]

Well, they do refer to themselves as a "society" and an "organization". While they do not call themselves a "skeptical movement", they are a collection of individuals that have come together for a collective purpose (i.e., "the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects) and thus fall under the sociological definition of a social movement.

Just because the Skeptics Society, CSI, JREF, and other skeptical organizations are social in nature doesn't mean that they are identical to pseudoscientific or religious social movements, which is the straw man to which proponents of such social movements like to appeal in an attempt to plead some sort of epistemic relativism. However, it is equally foolish to claim that such societies and organizations are in some way social movements and it is therefore more productive determine how the skeptical social movement differs from other social movements.

Again, why, especially in light of this evidence, is it so important that an "organized skeptical movement" not exist?

[clerihew80]

No he isn't. He's just a very highly publicised one.

James Randi is recognized as the world's preeminent debunker of pseudoscience. He currently devotes almost all of his time to exposing frauds, offering, as we all know, a million dollar prize, running an educational foundation, maintaining a website, publishing books, and appearing in the media - all in service of skepticism and debunking. When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic.

But then you could say the same for Dawkins. Or Sagan and Feynman when they were alive. Or the MythBusters now. But were/are they all the very definition of "activist skeptics"?
No, because, while skeptics, they are better known for their work in the fields of evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics. The Mythbusters concentrate primarily on urban legends and blowing things up. None of them have devoted anything close to the amount of time that James Randi has to challenging all forms of irrationality and superstition. They're not comparable.

"The very definition of" is an expression that implies a close correspondence to the accepted definition of a word or phrase. This is how Wikipedia defines "activist skeptic":

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.

I'd say this a pretty fair match for Randi, wouldn't you? Note that Randi's past exploits (i.e. Project Alpha) are even used as examples of what an activist skeptic does!

[athon]

I refer to my post (#7) firstly, to reiterate that one must look at the context in which 'activist' and 'movement' is used in before really making any bold references.

In both cases, the suggestion of politics underlies the words. As far as I know, Randi has not concentrated any efforts on petitioning state or federal changes within any country. His field is more educational, as he tries to change views through speaking directly to the public. Therefore any label of 'activist' must attempt to distance the definition from being one concerning political reformation or change.

I'm sure you can say that many skeptics, including Randi, would like to see changes to the laws in many cases. And they might comment specifically on the changes they would personally like to see. However, I hesitate to call this activism.

Likewise, a movement implies more than a general shared desire to see vague changes, and requires more of an organised, concentrated effort on changing how society functions through specifics.

I won't get upset if somebody refers to a skeptical movement. I might even feel flattered that they see enough merit in the shared desires of skeptics to call it one. However if their context implies actions and organisation that doesn't exist, I'll call them on that.

Athon

[Zep]

James Randi is recognized as the world's preeminent debunker of pseudoscience. He currently devotes almost all of his time to exposing frauds, offering, as we all know, a million dollar prize, running an educational foundation, maintaining a website, publishing books, and appearing in the media - all in service of skepticism and debunking. When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic. Again, you mistake public awareness with emminence. Randi acknowledges himself that he is not a scientist. But that he IS a showman. And indeed he is well known to the public. But does that make him a preeminent skeptic? I think you will find that a number of other people have debunked giant myths just as spectacularly as Randi has, and yet their names are almost unknown. Example: Robert W. Wood, of Johns Hopkins University. See if you can find him... Randi certainly looks up to this man!

You also make the mistake of conflating debunking with skepticism. They are not the same, by any stretch of imagination. Once that difference is understood, you can see why it is not a good idea to elevate Randi to the pinnacle of "The Face of Skepticism".

No, because, while skeptics, they are better known for their work in the fields of evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics. The Mythbusters concentrate primarily on urban legends and blowing things up. None of them have devoted anything close to the amount of time that James Randi has to challenging all forms of irrationality and superstition. They're not comparable.

"The very definition of" is an expression that implies a close correspondence to the accepted definition of a word or phrase. This is how Wikipedia defines "activist skeptic":

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.

I'd say this a pretty fair match for Randi, wouldn't you? Note that Randi's past exploits (i.e. Project Alpha) are even used as examples of what an activist skeptic does!Ah, "activist skeptic", as opposed to common or garden variety of skeptic? So what would you call Sagan? Was he an activist skeptic? How about Feynman? I'd be interested to know if you have done your homework on them...

[wahrheit]

To those who wondered what the fuzz is all about, and why T'ai Chi would open a thread on this:

From now on, whenever someone opposes the notion he or she is an alleged member of "the skeptical movement", T'ai Chi can link to this discussion and write something like "Not everybody agrees with you". Alternatively, he will cherry pick some quotes from this thread, preferably from a well-known, long-time poster of this forum.

Just my two cents.

[clerihew80]

Therefore any label of 'activist' must attempt to distance the definition from being one concerning political reformation or change.
Generally, I would use the word 'activist' to mean a vigorous advocate for a political or social cause. In this case, I was talking about the specific designation of "activist skeptic," the definition of which I gave in my previous post.

As far as I know, Randi has not concentrated any efforts on petitioning state or federal changes within any country.
You're splitting hairs here. Randi constantly calls for refocusing of political priorities and the enforcement of statutes that are already on the books. He has advocated petitioning on a few occasions, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/022704dane.html, http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0009.html
Just because he doesn't concentrate on petitioning doesn't disqualify him from being considered an activist. Perhaps he feels there are more productive ways of spending his time? There's a lot more to activism than just mailing a bunch of signatures to government officials, who will most likely ignore them.

[athon]

Generally, I would use the word 'activist' to mean a vigorous advocate for a political or social cause. In this case, I was talking about the specific designation of "activist skeptic," the definition of which I gave in my previous post.

Indeed, as I said, one would have to take care to do that. Without such a clarification, the assumption of activist having political connotations would remain. Why go to the trouble of saying 'activist, but not in a political way'? Why not just not use the word in deference for another term?

You're splitting hairs here. Randi constantly calls for refocusing of political priorities and the enforcement of statutes that are already on the books. He has advocated petitioning on a few occasions, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/022704dane.html, http://www.randi.org/hotline/1995/0009.html
Just because he doesn't concentrate on petitioning doesn't disqualify him from being considered an activist. Perhaps he feels there are more productive ways of spending his time? There's a lot more to activism than just mailing a bunch of signatures to government officials, who will most likely ignore them.

How am I splitting hairs? You're wanting to use the term activist, and I'm telling you what it implies. I'm a teacher. Nobody calls me an 'education activist'. I've written articles and papers on the topic of education reform and how we need it, and still I don't think anybody would quite go so far as to labelling me an activist. To do so would give the impression that I actively go to lengths to encourage policy change by addressing those who could directly do it. Instead, I endeavour to change public opinion.

Take care with the language you use. Naively swinging a word with little view of the connotations it carries will create impressions you never meant to imply.

Athon

[clerihew80]

Again, you mistake public awareness with emminence. Randi acknowledges himself that he is not a scientist. But that he IS a showman. And indeed he is well known to the public. But does that make him a preeminent skeptic?
What a quagmire of semantic quibbling this thread has become! If we're talking about eminence in the academic field, then yes, Robert W. Wood trumps Randi. But I was using eminent in the sense of being well-known or conspicuous. I did not confuse eminence with public awareness - eminence can be derived from public awareness depending on the context.

You also make the mistake of conflating debunking with skepticism. They are not the same, by any stretch of imagination.
What?! When did I say they were the same?

[clerihew80]

Indeed, as I said, one would have to take care to do that. Without such a clarification, the assumption of activist having political connotations would remain. Why go to the trouble of saying 'activist, but not in a political way'? Why not just not use the word in deference for another term?
Because the word activism is not restricted to political activism.

You're wanting to use the term activist, and I'm telling you what it implies. I'm a teacher.
I don't need you to tell me what the word implies. I didn't sign up for your class.

Instead, I endeavour to change public opinion.
Which is a form of activism. From Wikipedia: "In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws;"

Take care with the language you use. Naively swinging a word with little view of the connotations it carries will create impressions you never meant to imply.
Thanks for the admonishment, teach. I suppose it was naive of me to expect members of this forum to have more than a limited and simplistic conception of the definition of a very common noun.

[Zep]

What?! When did I say they were the same?Here:When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic.I'd take Athon's advice if I were you. ;) "Commonly understood" is no such thing - it means different things to different people. Which is why we hope to get some accepted clarification on definitions before we try to move forward.

And if you don't agree, perhaps I could tell you to kindly be rooted? ;)

[athon]

Because the word activism is not restricted to political activism.

Not strictly, no. But I never said otherwise. I said it carries an implication. Do you know the difference between denotative and connotative meaning?

I don't need you to tell me what the word implies. I didn't sign up for your class.

A touch defensive, aren't we? I'm not attacking you, but pointing out where your understanding seems deficient.

Which is a form of activism. From Wikipedia: "In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws;"

Small point; wiki is a poor choice of reference. It's a great resource to use when you need some place to start understanding something. But it's not looked upon as a good reference when you're after an authority on a topic.

I never said that activism could not be used in reference to a vegetarian trying to convert other members of the public directly. Indeed, I even said it's not technically incorrect to refer to Randi as an activist. I was saying that there is a general tendency to associate political efforts with the term. Just like 'movement' implies more than an educational focus and shared desires in social change.

Thanks for the admonishment, teach. I suppose it was naive of me to expect members of this forum to have more than a limited and simplistic conception of the definition of a very common noun.

Actually, I think you're the one being naive. If you want to apply a strict definition, you could say Randi is an activist and not be technically wrong.

Yet to ask somebody to describe the actions and characteristics of an activist (without further clarification) and I can guarentee that they would think of something slightly different to a ranting vego sharing their opinions on a blog. It's this connotative meaning you're conveniently - or naively - ignoring.

Athon

[ReligionStudent]

I think the main point to me is still the failure to show that there is some sort of organized movement and not just many people who happen to use scientific and skeptical methods to different ends.

[blutoski]

I think the main point to me is still the failure to show that there is some sort of organized movement and not just many people who happen to use scientific and skeptical methods to different ends.

My take-away is the curious observation that after so many clear examples are given, even one person can possibly still hold this view.





Skepticism is obviously a movement. It's so self-evident that I don't know what more to say.

There is a collection of people who share the vision of a world where objectivity, reasoning, and the naturalistic worldview replace much of the theological and superstitious status quo - we take action to achieve this political change. That some take more action than others does not eliminate the existence of the movement. Movements are like that.

We have a lobbyist in Washington, representatives in important government positions, millions of dollars of buildings and other facilities, journals, membership rosters who usually pay dues, lists of goals and objectives dedicated to change.




The only explanations for denying this that I can think of are:

people will bite off their nose to spite their face as long as it doesn't make them appear to agree with T'ai Ch'i. Or are too stubborn to publicly reverse an obviously ridiculous position.
there is a component of skepticism that draws from iconoclasts and proud independent thinkers. These people hate admitting that just like everybody else, their ideas are formed by exposure to the thoughts of others. Almost nobody's thoughts are truly their own.
there is a component of skepticism that draws from people who identify as non-joiners (think Groucho Marx) who can't face the possibility that non-joiners can found a club of their own.

[ReligionStudent]

No, I simply think that
A) there is not one single movement, but many different groups with different goals and methods

B) not everyone is in these groups. I associate here socialy, not not for some larger goal. I am interested in people like Randi etc, because I think that there is reason behind skepticism

C) Skepticism is a method seperate from goals that these groups might have.
These goals may be educationa bout skepticism, but that certainly does not contain everyone here, as many statements made in this thread have.

[sackett]

Tai Chi is right: The skeptical movement has been clandestinely organized for some time. We meet in beer-cellars and have roaring, table-thumping agreements. We all wear brown shirts and these really neat-looking armbands. We’ve tried drilling in the city park, but as you know, Aryans don’t submit easily to discipline, and we concentrate more on Direct Action.

Skeptics, not Aryans. My slip, sorry. Soon we’ll take back the streets. Soon the creduloid sub-men will feel the wrath of a vengeful race! Thinkers, awake!

[clerihew80]

Here:
Originally Posted by clerihew80
When you think debunking, you think "James Randi." I stand by my characterization of him as "the very definition of an activist skeptic." In fact, I'll go you one better and call him the apotheosis of the activist skeptic.

Yes, and exactly where does this imply that debunking and skepticism are synonyms?

[Moochie]

Why is it so important that there not be an "organized skeptical movement"?

Because there bloody well isn't one.

M.

[clerihew80]

Do you know the difference between denotative and connotative meaning?
Indeed, I do. But I wasn't under the impression that the word "activism" automatically connoted political activism. My naivete, you see.

I'm not attacking you, but pointing out where your understanding seems deficient.
No, but you're being quite patronizing.

(Wiki) is a great resource to use when you need some place to start understanding something.
Which is how I used it.

Yet to ask somebody to describe the actions and characteristics of an activist (without further clarification) and I can guarentee that they would think of something slightly different to a ranting vego sharing their opinions on a blog. It's this connotative meaning you're conveniently - or naively - ignoring.
But I never used the word "activist" to refer to someone merely ranting on a blog. I used it to refer to James Randi.

[thaiboxerken]

I think it would be nice if there was an organized skeptic movement.

[CFLarsen]

If this "skeptical movement" is so "organized", it must be easy to list all those who are "organized" in it.

Otherwise, where's the "organized" part?

[Moochie]

Well, they do refer to themselves as a "society" and an "organization". While they do not call themselves a "skeptical movement", they are a collection of individuals that have come together for a collective purpose (i.e., "the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects) and thus fall under the sociological definition of a social movement.

Just because the Skeptics Society, CSI, JREF, and other skeptical organizations are social in nature doesn't mean that they are identical to pseudoscientific or religious social movements, which is the straw man to which proponents of such social movements like to appeal in an attempt to plead some sort of epistemic relativism. However, it is equally foolish to claim that such societies and organizations are in some way social movements and it is therefore more productive determine how the skeptical social movement differs from other social movements.

Again, why, especially in light of this evidence, is it so important that an "organized skeptical movement" not exist?

Are you hard of thinking?

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I belong to a PC user group that's affiliated with similar groups all over the world. If you referred to the members of these groups as belonging to an "organized PC movement" they'd quite rightly think you a sandwich short of a picnic.

M.

[mijopaalmc]

Are you hard of thinking?

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I belong to a PC user group that's affiliated with similar groups all over the world. If you referred to the members of these groups as belonging to an "organized PC movement" they'd quite rightly think you a sandwich short of a picnic. It's the same for people of a skeptical bent.

M.

Do skeptics come together to effect social or political change or to reinforce their beliefs (albeit supported by evidence) about various topics?

If so, they represent a social movement. It may not be centralized and there may be many organizations that do not adhere identical sets of beliefs, but such entities are inherently social in nature as they consist of more than one person and, because each group has a common cause, at least within that group, they constitute movements. In short, while there in no single "organized skeptical movement", each skeptical organization represent a manifestation of a skeptical movement.

What makes skeptics so unlike other people that groups of skeptics cannot be studied by sociology?

[CFLarsen]

What makes skeptics so unlike other people that groups of skeptics cannot be studied by sociology?

Did anyone claim this?

[Moochie]

Do skeptics come together to effect social or political change or to reinforce their beliefs (albeit supported by evidence) about various topics?

If so, they represent a social movement. It may not be centralized and there may be many organizations that do not adhere identical sets of beliefs, but such entities are inherently social in nature as they consist of more than one person and, because each group has a common cause, at least within that group, they constitute movements. In short, while there in no single "organized skeptical movement", each skeptical organization represent a manifestation of a skeptical movement.

What makes skeptics so unlike other people that groups of skeptics cannot be studied by sociology?

Ah, now I get it. I'm an organized skeptical movement!

M.

[ReligionStudent]

apparently whoever organized the skeptic movements did about as good a job as whoever intelligently designed the world (if only he had thought about that whole cancer think a little longer).

[mijopaalmc]

Ah, now I get it. I'm an organized skeptical movement!

M.

No, that's not my point. However, skeptical organizations do take political action (e.g.,the CSI amicus curiae (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html) in Edwards v. Aguillard (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/), the Skeptics Society amicus curiae (http://www.americanhumanist.org/TenCommandmentsBrief.pdf) in van Orden v Perry (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500/), the Center for Inquiry's Office of Public Policy (http://www.cfidc.org/) and its numerous amici curiae (http://www.cfidc.org/legal/index.html#sub)), so to claim that they do not constitute social movements is illogical. Although the Center for Inquiry is not a social movement per se because it operates within a pre-existing social structure, it represents a social institution that has arisen from a social movement. This, however, does not mean every skeptic belongs to a skeptical movement but to deny that there is no skeptical movement because all skeptics are not in one monolithic organization make about as much sense as to claim that there was no Civil Right Movement because the NAACP did not agree with the philosophy of the Nation of Islam.

[T'ai Chi]

So I'm wondering, are Randi and Shermer wrong when they refer to it as a skeptical movement?

Where's your (anyone?) evidence?

[clerihew80]

So I'm wondering, are Randi and Shermer wrong when they refer to it as a skeptical movement?
No, but the people in this thread will sleep with their own mothers before they'll concede a point to you.

[CFLarsen]

So I'm wondering, are Randi and Shermer wrong when they refer to it as a skeptical movement?

Where do they refer to an organized skeptical movement?

If this skeptical movement you speak of is so organized, who exactly are in it? It should be easy, since it is so organized.

Where's your (anyone?) evidence?

Speaking of which: Where is your evidence that Shermer refers to a skeptical movement (organized or not) in this article (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html) you linked to?

[ReligionStudent]

No, but the people in this thread will sleep with their own mothers before they'll concede a point to you.

I have specifically stated that some believe there is a movement, but that it is not as inclusive as those posting to this thread seem to think, and one's presence on this board or reading skeptic magazine does not make one part of this movement.

[Civilized Worm]

There are plenty of sceptical organisations and I support them wholeheartedly, but scepticism itself is really more of a philosophy or world view than a movement.

[clerihew80]

Where do they refer to an organized skeptical movement?
I think the "organized" part is implicit. It may not be the type of centralized organization that Tai Chi is thinking of, however.

[clerihew80]

I have specifically stated that some believe there is a movement, but that it is not as inclusive as those posting to this thread seem to think, and one's presence on this board or reading skeptic magazine does not make one part of this movement.
OK, I'll accept that you don't consider yourself part of a Skeptical movement. I'd just like to say that I don't belong to any Skeptical organizations. The extent of my involvement in this alleged movement is, like yours, limited to visiting these websites and reading the magazines, and yet I'm wholly in favor of a Skeptical movement. If such a movement doesn't already exist, then somebody should start one.

[ReligionStudent]

OK, I'll accept that you don't consider yourself part of a Skeptical movement. I'd just like to say that I don't belong to any Skeptical organizations. The extent of my involvement in this alleged movement is, like yours, limited to visiting these websites and reading the magazines, and yet I'm wholly in favor of a Skeptical movement. If such a movement doesn't already exist, then somebody should start one.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with starting one (it would depend on what went into it and its stated goals etc).

[blutoski]

We meet in beer-cellars and have roaring, table-thumping agreements.

Skeptics In The Pub have been meeting in beer cellars for twenty years. According to the few audiorecorded sessions available on the Australian Skeptics' website, I'd say that yes, there are quite a few table-thumping agreements.

Are you implying that skeptics should not consider themselves a movement, because all 'movements' are bad by definition?

I'm proud to consider myself part of a skeptical movement. I consider it a push for change up with abolition and women's suffrage. These movements were also composed of a mix of formal and informal - or even completely independent - participants. But they shared a commom philosophical goal of change for human betterment.

You don't have to be part of the movement. But, speaking for those of us who are: please get out of our way.

[strathmeyer]

Perhaps some are just surprised by the ability of people who disagree with them to seemingly amass around him.

Reading blutoski's posts reminds me of people I used to bar sit with. This was long before I ever heard of the JREF or skepticism, yet I'm sure everyone would call them skeptics. Were we an organized movement?

[blutoski]

No, I simply think that
A) there is not one single movement, but many different groups with different goals and methods

But to clarify: are you saying now that your complaint is that 'skeptical movement' should be 'skeptical movements'?

That's quibbling, I think. There's lumpers and splitters who evaluate any organization, but I'm willing to say that there are sufficient shared values for skeptics to self-identify with. Mostly the promotion of a naturalistic worldview instead of a supernatural one, and a preference for reason over intuition.





B) not everyone is in these groups. I associate here socialy, not not for some larger goal. I am interested in people like Randi etc, because I think that there is reason behind skepticism

Hello, but the question isn't "is ReligionStudent part of a skeptical movement?" I'm not part of the holocaust denial movement. That doesn't make it disappear.

The debate at hand is about whether such participation exists to be called a movement. I would say pretty obviously, yes.





C) Skepticism is a method seperate from goals that these groups might have.
These goals may be educationa bout skepticism, but that certainly does not contain everyone here, as many statements made in this thread have.

? I'm having trouble parsing that last sentence.

I'm particularly intrigued about how you might explain that the Skeptics Society, Australian Skeptics, UK Skeptics, BC Skeptics &c could possibly have goals that don't align with skepticism.

[blutoski]

apparently whoever organized the skeptic movements did about as good a job as whoever intelligently designed the world (if only he had thought about that whole cancer think a little longer).

Mind: some of us will take that personally.

Barry Beyerstein is the president of the BCSkeptics, and a co-founder of CSI (nee CSICOP). He has worked his ass off for decades fighting crooks and liars across the world.



Organizing skeptics is a bit like herding cats, because they come from different political and religious backgrounds, and fight among themselves over things that are not skepticism. They are also proud of their independent thinking, and generally object to toeing party lines, and having obligations to a group.

I also have a personal belief that the movement disproportionately attracts certain disorders such as OCPD.

[athon]

Indeed, I do. But I wasn't under the impression that the word "activism" automatically connoted political activism. My naivete, you see.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/activist

It's your reaction to being challenged on this point which is unfortunate. Not your misunderstanding.

No, but you're being quite patronizing.

I tend to do that when people react arrogantly to being challenged. Rather than remaining open to the possibility that you're wrong (or arguing successfully why you're not), you respond rather defensively.

Which is how I used it.

Excellent. So you then concede that wiki is a weak authority to argue from.

But I never used the word "activist" to refer to someone merely ranting on a blog. I used it to refer to James Randi.

No, but you made a comparison between Randi and vegetarians who communicate their beliefs without necessarily lobbying for government change. I was following your analogy.

Athon

[ReligionStudent]

My issue is not with skeptic organizations, they exist. My issue is with various comments that have been made to the effect that there is a single large skeptic movement.
Some points that have been made as to how to put people into such a movement are reading Skeptic etc, posting on these forums, being an atheist, reading/respecting Randi/Shermer/other well known skeptics, etc. I think that one can do any or all of these and not be part of some skeptic movement.

Even self-identifying as a skeptic does not make one part of some skeptic movement, since this does not state that they are making movements towards any goals, this simply identifies part of ones outlook or methodology.

My issue is with the idea of this one skeptic movement that seems to incorperate everyone who does or says anything even remotely linking them to skeptical thinking.

My issue is not with seperate individual groups wiht their own goals and methods.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm thinking if the skeptical movement was organized, we'd make a bigger difference. The problem is, with skeptics, that most of us are individual thinkers and hard to "organize" into a common philosophy of what's "skeptical." When it comes to the paranormal, it's rather cohesive, but when it comes to social issues (politics) we tend to seperate into our own groups. In otherwords, unlike religious and political clubs, we really don't have any dogma to hold us together as an organized movement.

[clerihew80]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/activist

It's your reaction to being challenged on this point which is unfortunate. Not your misunderstanding.
But I didn't misunderstand anything. You're the one having trouble. And that link you provided defines activist as " A proponent or practitioner of activism" - which is a tad tautological. It only cites "political activists" as an example of a type of activism, so what's the point of pasting it?

I tend to do that when people react arrogantly to being challenged. Rather than remaining open to the possibility that you're wrong (or arguing successfully why you're not), you respond rather defensively.
I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It was wrong of me to assert, for instance, that ReligionStudent is a peripheral member of the Skeptical movement because he supports James Randi and is a member of this forum. He protested, and I've accepted his disavowal.

I didn't react arrogantly, I reacted irritatedly to your accusations of naivete and your presumptuousness in attempting to give me an impromptu semantics lecture.

Excellent. So you then concede that wiki is a weak authority to argue from.
Well I would concede that, if I had ever suggested that wiki was a strong authority. I cited those passages as tentative definitions of the concepts that I was referring to so we could all get on the same page. You were perfectly free to accept or reject the definitions on their own merits, rather than because of their source. Instead you chose to digress into a discussion on the reliability of Wikipedia. Don't you think I'm aware of the problematic nature of that particular site? Why is it that every time you cite Wiki, someone feels like they have to explain to you that it's not the be-all and end-all of references, as if you're a complete *********** internet novice? Can't we just agree that it's an acceptable place to go to get common definitions of certain concepts?

No, but you made a comparison between Randi and vegetarians who communicate their beliefs without necessarily lobbying for government change. I was following your analogy.
Well, I should think it would be difficult to follow an analogy I never made!
I posted a quote which read: "In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws." All I was saying was that one doesn't have to call for governmental policy change to be considered an activist. I never made any comparison between Randi and vegetarians, other than that I consider them both to be types of activists. And the activist vegetarians I was talking about are quite different from your "vego ranting on a blog."

[athon]

But I didn't misunderstand anything. You're the one having trouble. And that link you provided defines activist as " A proponent or practitioner of activism" - which is a tad tautological. It only cites "political activists" as an example of a type of activism, so what's the point of pasting it?

I honestly don't see the issue. It was to demonstrate that often when the word activist is used, it carries implications of engaging in political debate and active social change to a greater extent than purely educational exercises. If I hear 'activist', I associate certain actions with that.

I'm not denying the pure denotative meaning which says technically you're correct. However, it is naive to think that such a word carries no further connotation.

I didn't react arrogantly, I reacted irritatedly to your accusations of naivete and your presumptuousness in attempting to give me an impromptu semantics lecture.

From what you were saying, it seemed you did not understand how the word activist could carry implications beyond what is demonstrated by the likes of the JREF. It either shows you don't understand connotative meaning, don't understand that the terms activist and movement carry implications of organisation and political interaction, or are intentionally ignoring it.

If having that pointed out to you irritates you, you're going to have a difficult time discussing here, as often people will demonstrate where you've neglected to take certain definitions into account.

Well I would concede that if I had ever suggested that wiki was a strong authority. I cited those passages as tentative definitions of the concepts that I was referring to so we could all get on the same page. You were perfectly free to accept or reject the definitions on their own merits, rather than because of their source. Instead you chose to digress into a discussion on the reliability of Wikipedia. Don't you think I'm aware of the problematic nature of that particular site? Why is it that every time you cite Wiki, someone feels like they have to explain to you that it's not the be-all and end-all of references, as if you're a complete *********** internet novice? Can't we just agree that it's an acceptable place to go to get common definitions of certain concepts?

Because citing wiki as a source carries little weight. It's useful as a quick way of describing something, but it adds little when used as an authoritative back-up. You were using it to demonstrate a source that agrees with you, not using it as a means to explain something I didn't know about.

But, fine. I'll drop that argument since it has no real place in this discussion.

Well, I should think it would be difficult to follow an analogy I never made!
I posted a quote which read: "In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws." All I was saying was that one doesn't have to call for governmental policy change to be considered an activist. I never made any comparison between Randi and vegetarians, other than that I consider them both to be types of activists. And the activist vegetarians I was talking about are quite different from your "vego ranting on a blog."

Looks like an analogy to me. You're comparing Randi's lack of political involvement with that of a vegetarian's or a feminist's or a religious person's and using that quote to demonstrate that they all could be referred to as activists. I followed that comparison. And how does the ranting on a blog differ in any significant way to a vegetarian trying to persuade people to change their behaviour (for purposes of this argument?).

I think you're just upset that your view has been questioned and now you're arguing for the sake of it.

Athon

[clerihew80]

I'm not denying the pure denotative meaning which says technically you're correct. However, it is naive to think that such a word carries no further connotation.
I don't think that.

From what you were saying, it seemed you did not understand how the word activist could carry implications beyond what is demonstrated by the likes of the JREF.
Wrong.

It either shows you don't understand connotative meaning, don't understand that the terms activist and movement carry implications of organisation and political interaction, or are intentionally ignoring it.
No, no and no.

If having that pointed out to you irritates you, you're going to have a difficult time discussing here, as often people will demonstrate where you've neglected to take certain definitions into account.
I'll take my chances.

Because citing wiki as a source carries little weight. It's useful as a quick way of describing something,
Which is how I used it.

but it adds little when used as an authoritative back-up.
That's not how I used it.

You were using it to demonstrate a source that agrees with you,
Yes...and?

But, fine. I'll drop that argument since it has no real place in this discussion.
Praise the lord.

And how does the ranting on a blog differ in any significant way to a vegetarian trying to persuade people to change their behaviour (for purposes of this argument?).
I think this is the most absurd question I've ever been asked in a forum! What do you mean "how do they differ"?!

I think you're just upset that your view has been questioned and now you're arguing for the sake of it.
Yawn...

[mijopaalmc]

Did anyone claim this?

Well, basically that sentiment is encapsulated in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

There is no dearth of skeptical organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skeptics_and_skeptical_organizations#Skept ic_organizations) which are groups of like-minded people who have come together to promote skepticism, as can be discerned by visiting their websites and reading their mission statements. While they don't all necessarily have explicitly political goals (the New England Skeptical Society being an exception (http://www.theness.com/about.asp)), most them have an educational element and therefore enter the political and legal arena when education becomes politicized and the judicial system is used as a weapon against skepticism and critical thought.

I understand that there are people who would denounce skepticism for having an associated social movement, but to deny that there is a collection of skeptical movements ignores the sociological definition of a social movement in order to appease nay-sayers who shouldn't hold sway over how skeptics think in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

I think the "organized" part is implicit. It may not be the type of centralized organization that Tai Chi is thinking of, however.

T'a Chi uses it explicitly.

Well, basically that sentiment is encapsulated in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

There's a difference between skeptical groups and a skeptical movement.

[athon]

I don't think that.

Let's go back over this.

You claim that Randi is an 'activist skeptic'. It was disputed that Randi's actions suit the term 'activist'. You then used Wikipedia to give the definition of this term, which looked to me as if you were using wiki as an authority. You claim you weren't, that you were clarifying, so fine. It's not worth nit-picking that.

Yet still in dispute is the fact that the term activist gives an accurate impression of Randi's activities. You continue to feel it is an accurate term, do you not? In spite of the fact that the connotations of activist imply more of an organised, political interaction which endeavours to change society directly rather than through education.

Therefore, you either disagree that activist carries an overt political connotation, raising images of petitions, protests and lobbying (active social changes) rather than educational lectures and public appearances (passive social changes)... or you agree with that, and feel Randi's behaviour is more active than passive.

If you believe the former, you're naive as to the implications of the term 'activism'. If the latter, I think you're incorreclty describing educational lectures and media appearances as an active form of social and political change.

I think this is the most absurd question I've ever been asked in a forum! What do you mean "how do they differ"?!

In the context of this discussion, comparing active versus passive social change, how do two forms of direct public communication ultimately differ? They are both passive forms of social change. How is that difficult?

Yawn...

Oh, I apologise; I thought you were interested in representing your viewpoint rather than just posturing for the sake of saving face in an argument.

Feel free to ignore my views if they're too challenging.

Athon

[zooterkin]

Perhaps the cause of this is that TC, and others, find they are being met with the same arguments against their theories from a variety of apparently unconnected respondents. Of course, the reason for this is that the people responding are merely applying scepticism, scientific knowledge and the scientific method, not some organised movement telling them what to say. However, from the point of view of some of the posters here (and I haven't spent the time to identify exactly which set of nonsense CT subscribes to, to say if he would fall into this group), what most of us here would call the conventional approach is just one of many to choose from, with most of the others held by a identifiable group of adherents who are organised to a greater or lesser degree. Their worldview is perhaps such that a set of beliefs is associated with a group, rather than being independently based on scientific research.

[clerihew80]

Athon:

OK, in the interest of clearing the air let's go back to the beginning. I didn't actually use the word "activist" initially. I used the term "activist skeptic," the definition of which - the definition that I'm operating with - is summed up as follows:

"Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point..."

Now, the way I see it you can either (A) agree that James Randi meets the criteria for an activist skeptic, (B) deny that he meets the criteria, or (C) dispute the definition that I've given. Those are your three options. Don't meander off into discussions of semantic ambiguity, or doubts as to the reliability of Wikipedia, or insinuations about my ignorance or callowness or what have you. Stick to the topic.

If you decide that James Randi can accurately be described as an activist skeptic, then what's the problem with referring to him more generally as an activist? I'm not really concerned with the varying connotations that this word might have for different people - that's entirely subjective and irrelevant. As I've said, I don't automatically think of "organized, political interaction" when I hear the word activist - so why should I (or you) assume that everyone else would?

[athon]

Now, the way I see it you can either (A) agree that James Randi meets the criteria for an activist skeptic, (B) deny that he meets the criteria, or (C) dispute the definition that I've given. Those are your three options. Don't meander off into discussions of semantic ambiguity, or the reliability of Wikipedia, or insinuations about my ignorance or callowness or what have you. Stick to the topic.

Go back and reread my posts. Strictly defined as such, I can't argue that Randi is not an activist. And if one wants to explicitly create a term such as 'activist skeptic', define it, and apply it to Randi, then they are welcome to. I've never come across the term before, to be honest, and I've been involved with skepticism and critical thinking in education for quite some time.

As I've said numerous times, however, using the term activist implies actively changing society in some ways (rather than passively, such as change through education). Hence to clarify, you'd need to say 'Randi is an activist, but not an activist who actively campaigns politicans or petitions for changes in law or governance'.

As I've said, I don't automatically think of "organized, political interaction" when I hear the word activist - so why should I (or you) assume that everyone else would?

You're right. I did a quick poll before around the staff room, asking what came to mind when I said activism, and I got back words such as 'protest', 'lobbying', the names of several political campaigners for civil rights in this country...but then, that's just the staff room. There's an insinuation here in this thread that the terms 'movement' and 'activism' seems to require more than passive education and forum discussions...but that's just this forum. I can point out several definitions that seem to imply or lead to political associations...but then, as you said, they're not strict definitions.

In the end, you might be correct, and to the majority of the population the term 'activism' carries no insinuation that such a thing has to do with 'actively' pushing for social change, but can include any form of action where one desires some form of difference.

If that's your stance, you're welcome to it. In my experience, however, I feel you're wrong.

Athon

ETA: some definitions, for the hell of it -

http://www.answers.com/topic/activism
The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

Lectures and educational programs are not typically seen as 'direct, often confrontational'. His addressing of particular woos might be, but I wouldn't call them a 'cause'.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861583522/activism.html
vigorous action: vigorous and sometimes aggressive action in pursuing a political or social end

Again, demonstrating that it is vigorous and aggressive, insinuating doing more than talks and lectures. To me, this implies actively going out and protesting, lobbying, petitioning, addressing those who can change things themselves... rather than educating and explaining to the people. Randi himself might be a rather aggressive speaker, but I don't feel his actions themselves are all that aggressive by nature.

But then, again, this is just me.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=activistic
vigorous action: vigorous and sometimes aggressive action in pursuing a political or social end

There's that 'vigorous action' again. You honestly, seriously see the challenge, Randi's lectures, TAM...etc....as 'vigorous actions'. I think they are incredibly passive, patiently educating the public through programs and media events. Aggressive, again, implies pushing actively for change.

Then again, maybe it is just me who sees 'activism' this way.

[clerihew80]

As I've said numerous times, however, using the term activist implies actively changing society in some ways (rather than passively, such as change through education).
But not all forms of education are passive. Is it passive to use television and print media to expose frauds, to (yes) actively challenge them to prove their claims?

[clerihew80]

ETA: some definitions, for the hell of it -

I don't deny that all of those definitions qualify as activism, but I'm saying that activism is not restricted to "vigorous, aggressive action."

You honestly, seriously see the challenge, Randi's lectures, TAM...etc....as 'vigorous actions'. I think they are incredibly passive, patiently educating the public through programs and media events.
Again, this is just semantic quibbling. It all depends on what level of vigor we're talking about. Are Randi's activities as vigorous as, say, leading a march on the White House? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that they're "incredibly passive." And, by the way, he has been accused more than once of being short on patience!

[athon]

I don't deny that all of those definitions qualify as activism, but I'm saying that activism is not restricted to "vigorous, aggressive action."


Again, this is just semantic quibbling. It all depends on what level of vigor we're talking about. Are Randi's activities as vigorous as, say, leading a march on the White House? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that they're "incredibly passive." And, by the way, he has been accused more than once of being short on patience!

Again, I don't see why you've needed to get your back up so much. You're arguing only out of wounded pride or something, and such shadow boxing only serves to make you look thin skinned and defensive.

I personally feel that 'activist' carries heavier implications than those which accurately describe Randi's endeavours. That's all. So, you obviously feel than educational programs and media appearances are vigorous and aggressive. Good for you. I can't argue what you feel, but I can comment on how I view such actions on a social spectrum, and, significantly, how I feel others might see it.

Athon

[athon]

But not all forms of education are passive. Is it passive to use television and print media to expose frauds, to (yes) actively challenge them to prove their claims?

Small point, but activism also has to do with changing a 'cause' or a 'political end'. It's more than just asking individuals to put up or shut up; it has to do with changing how society functions. Randi actually avoids challenging educational systems. I once discussed this with him, and it made for a rather interesting chat.

Again, you're free to decide that your own definition does not include 'cause' or 'political end'. It would disagree with the definitions I've seen, though.

Athon

[clerihew80]

Again, I don't see why you've needed to get your back up so much. You're arguing only out of wounded pride or something, and such shadow boxing only serves to make you look thin skinned and defensive.
Well, you called me naive and suggested that I was ignorant. I'm sorry, I get thick-skinned when I'm attacked.

So, you obviously feel than educational programs and media appearances are vigorous and aggressive.
I don't feel that way about all educational programs and media appearances. You have this tendency to generalize everything I say.

[clerihew80]

Small point, but activism also has to do with changing a 'cause' or a 'political end'. It's more than just asking individuals to put up or shut up; it has to do with changing how society functions. Randi actually avoids challenging educational systems. I once discussed this with him, and it made for a rather interesting chat.
But I would suggest that he works to change how society thinks. In my opinion, this is the most necessary and potent form of activism.

[athon]

Well, you called me naive and suggested that I was ignorant. I'm sorry, I get thick-skinned when I'm attacked.

I said you were 'naively throwing' a term around. I was describing your actions as naive. I don't know you. I can't extrapolate that to mean you're universally naive. And if you feel I was 'attacking' you, then I apologise. Your claims and words are under criticism, not you personally.

I don't feel that way about all educational programs and media appearances. You have this tendency to generalize everything I say.

I can only play with what you give me.

So, you're claiming that the JREFs programs and Randi's media appearances are aggressive and vigorous attempts to address social change and / or political ends? Seriously?

But I would suggest that he wants to change how society thinks. I would argue that this is the most necessary and potent form of activism.

Of course he wishes people to think differently. I'd also love for people to think differently. That's why I'm a teacher. Am I an activist? Are all people who try to convince others to behave differently activists?

Athon

[sackett]

Skeptics In The Pub have been meeting in beer cellars for twenty years.... yes, there are quite a few table-thumping agreements....
I'm proud to ... push ....You don't have to be part of the movement. But...get out of our way.

That's the spirit!

Our little Bund -- group, sorry -- has some openings for Gauleiter. Interested?

[mijopaalmc]

I don't understand why people fail to grasp that skeptical societies and organizations are social movements since they are groups of individuals who come together with the express purpose of achieving an often formalized set of goals for social change. It really doesn't matter whether skeptics form one centralized group or many small groups acting independently of each other or whether one specific poster belongs to a skeptical organization or society; the fact that such organizations and societies are social in nature makes them social movements. After all, some of the most important movements in history (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement, the Reformation, etc.) consisted of many groups holding diverse opinions (e.g., NAACP, Nation of Islam, Lutheran, Calvinists, etc.) No-one would claim that the Civil Rights Movement or the Reformation were not (social) movements simply because there was no centralized authority governing all the groups involved.

What makes the fact that skepticism gives rise to organizations and societies so different from other motivations to form movements that you can definitively declare that there are no skeptical movements?

[ReligionStudent]

I claimed there was not a single skeptical movement. But quite frankly the difference between the civil rights movement and current skeptic organizations is that the skeptic organizations are not all working towards one single goal.

They have seperate goals which all somehow involve skepticism, but as a method, not an ends necessarily.

[Invidious]

I claimed there was not a single skeptical movement. But quite frankly the difference between the civil rights movement and current skeptic organizations is that the skeptic organizations are not all working towards one single goal.

They have seperate goals which all somehow involve skepticism, but as a method, not an ends necessarily.
I believe the contention is that all the disparate skeptic organizations' shared regard for education, particularly education in skepticism, is the common denominator.

[mijopaalmc]

I claimed there was not a single skeptical movement. But quite frankly the difference between the civil rights movement and current skeptic organizations is that the skeptic organizations are not all working towards one single goal.

They have seperate goals which all somehow involve skepticism, but as a method, not an ends necessarily.

You might actually want to investigate that claim before you take it as truth. Many skeptical organizations have mission statements and therefore it is easy to determine the purpose for which they say they exist. Wikipedia has a extensive list of skeptical organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skeptics_and_skeptical_organizations#Skept ic_organizations) from which you can access the websites and read the mission statements or descriptions of such skeptical organizations as Australian Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/skeptics/aims.htm), the Center for Inquiry (http://www.cfidc.org/about.html), the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (http://www.csicop.org/about/), Irish Skeptics (http://www.irishskeptics.net/?page_id=101), the James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html), the New England Skeptical Society (http://www.theness.com/about.asp), the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (its statement is forthcoming, but it is significant that it is planned), and the Skeptics Society (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html). While this is certainly not meant to be an exhaustive list or even a statistical sample of all skeptical organizations, it does demonstrate that a limited set of skeptical organizations hold certain goals in common despite being only philosophically connected. As I have said before, I am not trying prove that there is one single, centralized Skeptical Movement or that everyone who self-identifies as a skeptic belongs to a skeptical organization; however, when skeptics come together with the purpose of creating organizations and societies devoted to disseminating skepticism (a goal which I don't think is wrong) skepticism ceases to be an individual endeavor and enters the realm of group actions and social movements.

Given the above provisos about what I believe and examples of the goals of skeptical organizations, I don't understand why people continue to insist that there are no skeptical movements or that independent organizations do not somehow, in the abstract, represent a larger movement. It seems as if there almost some sort of benefit to stubbornly rejecting the sociological aspects of skepticism.

[Moochie]

No, that's not my point. However, skeptical organizations do take political action (e.g.,the CSI amicus curiae (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html) in Edwards v. Aguillard (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/), the Skeptics Society amicus curiae (http://www.americanhumanist.org/TenCommandmentsBrief.pdf) in van Orden v Perry (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500/), the Center for Inquiry's Office of Public Policy (http://www.cfidc.org/) and its numerous amici curiae (http://www.cfidc.org/legal/index.html#sub)), so to claim that they do not constitute social movements is illogical.

Your opinion's as good as mine. No one's denying that disparate groups of people go to court for all kinds of reasons, but inferring a movement from that, let alone a skeptical movement, requires extraordinary mental gymnastics.

And I think you are being more than a little disingenuous citing skeptics' role in these cases. Acting as a "friend of the court" is evidence of what? Did you check who else was acting in that capacity in any of those cases?

Although the Center for Inquiry is not a social movement per se because it operates within a pre-existing social structure, it represents a social institution that has arisen from a social movement. This, however, does not mean every skeptic belongs to a skeptical movement but to deny that there is no skeptical movement because all skeptics are not in one monolithic organization make about as much sense as to claim that there was no Civil Right Movement because the NAACP did not agree with the philosophy of the Nation of Islam.

And your attempt to create a coherent picture of a "skeptical movement" by drawing lines to connect every dot bearing the letters s-k-e-p-t-i-c makes an equal amount of (non)sense.

M.

[Moochie]

I wouldn't necessarily argue with starting one (it would depend on what went into it and its stated goals etc).

Many of the skeptics I know would balk at the notion of an "official skeptical movement," as do I.

The idea is odious and deserves to be put down, IMNSHO. :D

M.

[mijopaalmc]

Your opinion's as good as mine. No one's denying that disparate groups of people go to court for all kinds of reasons, but inferring a movement from that, let alone a skeptical movement, requires extraordinary mental gymnastics.

And I think you are being more than a little disingenuous citing skeptics' role in these cases. Acting as a "friend of the court" is evidence of what? Did you check who else was acting in that capacity in any of those cases?



And your attempt to create a coherent picture of a "skeptical movement" by drawing lines to connect every dot bearing the letters s-k-e-p-t-i-c makes an equal amount of (non)sense.

M.

Do you deliberately ignore what I say?

I have never said that there was a monolithic Skeptical Movement. Nonetheless, many skeptical organizations share similar goals because they are philosophically related through skepticism, just as the various civil right groups were all conceptually united in the desire for legal equality of African-Americans and all the Protestant movements during the Reformation were conceptually related to one another by their desire to reform (or re-form) the Catholic Church. However, no-one denies that there was a Civil Rights Movement or a Reformation because they both consisted of many groups with diverse beliefs.

Why is skepticism so different?

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it so important to skeptics that their collective endeavors not be called a movement?

[ReligionStudent]

You might actually want to investigate that claim before you take it as truth. Many skeptical organizations have mission statements and therefore it is easy to determine the purpose for which they say they exist. Wikipedia has a extensive list of skeptical organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skeptics_and_skeptical_organizations#Skept ic_organizations) from which you can access the websites and read the mission statements or descriptions of such skeptical organizations as Australian Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/skeptics/aims.htm), the Center for Inquiry (http://www.cfidc.org/about.html), the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (http://www.csicop.org/about/), Irish Skeptics (http://www.irishskeptics.net/?page_id=101), the James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html), the New England Skeptical Society (http://www.theness.com/about.asp), the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (its statement is forthcoming, but it is significant that it is planned), and the Skeptics Society (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html). While this is certainly not meant to be an exhaustive list or even a statistical sample of all skeptical organizations, it does demonstrate that a limited set of skeptical organizations hold certain goals in common despite being only philosophically connected. As I have said before, I am not trying prove that there is one single, centralized Skeptical Movement or that everyone who self-identifies as a skeptic belongs to a skeptical organization; however, when skeptics come together with the purpose of creating organizations and societies devoted to disseminating skepticism (a goal which I don't think is wrong) skepticism ceases to be an individual endeavor and enters the realm of group actions and social movements.

Given the above provisos about what I believe and examples of the goals of skeptical organizations, I don't understand why people continue to insist that there are no skeptical movements or that independent organizations do not somehow, in the abstract, represent a larger movement. It seems as if there almost some sort of benefit to stubbornly rejecting the sociological aspects of skepticism.

The Australian Skeptic site - Concerned with testing claims, except for the line To encourage Australians and the Australian news media to adopt a critical attitude towards paranormal claims and to understand that to introduce or to entertain a hypothesis does not constitute confirmation or proof of that hypothesis. Mostly about testing

CSI- Pretty much all about testing

NESS- Also some on testing

JREF- Also some focus on testing

In the case of the CSI and largely the Australian Skeptic Society, as well as NESS and JREF to a lesser degree, there is a confusion between scientifically, and naturally skeptically, testing paranormal claims, and a skeptic movement.

Yes, skepticism is a necessary means to test paranormal claims. Doing so is not necessarily promoting skepticism, but actually exploring the world. I should hope that the JREF, NESS, CSI, or others would all admit if something paranormal occured. This would not be non-skeptical, but it certainly would not be some part of a skeptic movement.

In short, I think many of these groups would be more of a scientific or paranormal research/debunking movement than a skeptic one. Those may be interlinked in many peoples' minds but they are not equivalent.

[Moochie]

Do you deliberately ignore what I say?

I have never said that there was a monolithic Skeptical Movement. Nonetheless, many skeptical organizations share similar goals because they are philosophically related through skepticism, just as the various civil right groups were all conceptually united in the desire for legal equality of African-Americans and all the Protestant movements during the Reformation were conceptually related to one another by their desire to reform (or re-form) the Catholic Church. However, no-one denies that there was a Civil Rights Movement or a Reformation because they both consisted of many groups with diverse beliefs.

Why is skepticism so different?

Well, until quite recently in this thread the reference was toward a skeptical movement, singular. No one's denying there are groups of skeptics about, grouping together for everything from having regular piss-ups to card nights. Many skeptics are members of a variety of groups, the basis of which can include just about any human endeavor under the sun.

To "unite" these disparate groups under any sort of ideological umbrella, as you are appearing to do, is ridiculous.

M.

[ReligionStudent]

I think the issue here is that skepticism is not an ends, but a means. Its like teaching someone math. Is there a movement to teach people math? well maybe there is, but is it really comparable to something like the civil rights movement? Skepticism is a methodology that leads to other movements, like debunking paranormal claims, doubt of Inelligent Design, and subsequently it not being taught as science, human equality, atheism, etc.

Once someone has been told "look, evidence is important in determining facts" Where would the skeptic movement go from there with that individual? Not far, it is up to them to move to actually use the methodology and look to other movements actually working on social change, such as equality for atheists/skeptics (different from skeptical education and certainly not a skeptic movement but an equality movement), evolution in schools, and testing the paranormal. I don't think any of these or many other things is part of a skeptic movement, but are their own seperate goals.

[athon]

Why is it so important to skeptics that their collective endeavors not be called a movement?

I don't think it's that skeptics are in denial or resist being a called a movement, as much as many of us prefer accuracy in language. It's somewhat like calling any collective of friends who meet once a week for coffee and a chat an 'organisation'. You could probably define them as one if you took into account their goals and their motivations, but it's a stretched definition.

Movement is the same. I would love there to be more momentum and a greater focus on how to go about changing society amongst skeptic groups. I'd love for it to be a movement. But I'm not going to prematurely pat ourselves on the back before it really is one.

Athon

[Dunstan]

I don't think it's that skeptics are in denial or resist being a called a movement, as much as many of us prefer accuracy in language. It's somewhat like calling any collective of friends who meet once a week for coffee and a chat an 'organisation'. You could probably define them as one if you took into account their goals and their motivations, but it's a stretched definition.

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

[athon]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

Well put, and I agree completely.

Athon

[ReligionStudent]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

That is a good point/statment of issue.

[mijopaalmc]

Well, until quite recently in this thread the reference was toward a skeptical movement, singular. No one's denying there are groups of skeptics about, grouping together for everything from having regular piss-ups to card nights. Many skeptics are members of a variety of groups, the basis of which can include just about any human endeavor under the sun.

To "unite" these disparate groups under any sort of ideological umbrella, as you are appearing to do, is ridiculous.

M.

I'm sorry that you think that way, but just because you think things are a certain way doesn't make them so. I have tried to demonstrate to you through empirical evidence of what skeptics say about themselves in their own words that there is a set of beliefs and goals that transcends individual skeptical organizations. I don't know why you continue to reject it.

Probably one aspect that unites all of the groups together, at least philosophically, is their desire to effect change through education:

Through education, research, publishing, and social services, it seeks to present affirmative alternatives based on scientific naturalism.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. It also promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues. To carry out these objectives the Committee[.]

To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

To educate the public about the principles and necessity of skepticism and critical thinking in our society.
[...]
To promote higher standards of education, especially in the areas of science and critical thinking skills.

The Society is dedicated to educating the public about controversial claims. We maintain a speaker’s bureau, a telephone referral service, and this website so that schools, the press, and the general public can access our information. We tirelessly lend our scientific viewpoint to media coverage of a wide range of issues. Check out our list of media appearances.


While Australian Skeptics does not have an explicitly educational provision in their mission statement, it do provide educational or informational resources like the other skeptical organizations cited:
Publishing a periodical, the Skeptic and distributing relevant information.
Publishing articles, monographs and books that examine claims of the paranormal.
Maintaining a library.
Preparing a bibliography of relevant published material.

Prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims
Convenes conferences and meetings
Publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal

To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.

[P]roviding reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

To gather and disseminate information of interest to skeptics.

To further our own learning, as well as the public’s, the Skeptics Society conducts investigations and research into controversial claims. We then make our articles available in our online reading room.

Similar comparisons can be made for other points in the mission statements. Needless to say skeptical organizations and societies, while not branches of some nefarious Skeptical Movement, do have common beliefs, goals, and methods which makes them manifestations of a decentralized social movement based on skepticism. This that of course not ever skeptic is involved in a skeptical movement. I'm not trying to accuse (as I think the so-appropriately named quasi-concern troll) is that of trying to perpetuate "Skeptical Orthodoxy" without regard to real knowledge much like fundamentalism in religion does. Rather, I'm just trying to point out that constantly denying the existence of skeptical movements (or movements based on skepticism, or whatever you want to call them) runs contrary to the well-accepted and well-observed phenomenon of social movements being the collective action of individuals who share common beliefs and goals. I therefore wonder if there is some advantage to skeptics in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

[noblecaboose]

The nature of the supposed skeptical "organization" seems to be as elusive as the New-Agers' definition of "energy."

[mijopaalmc]

The nature of the supposed skeptical "organization" seems to be as elusive as the New-Agers' definition of "energy."

Rather (I imagine) like the nature of Lutheranism before the Augsburg Confession and Anabaptism before the Schleitheim Confession. Just because the movement doesn't have an official declaration of what it is and isn't doesn't mean that there isn't a movement.

[Jeff Corey]

I like the poster way back who said it was joining the bowel movement. Here in NY we have the CSI, who are way different from the New York Area Skeptics, who refuse to touch a religious discussion with a 3 meter pole. Except for weeping icons.
So some go after the stupidity they want to target, and others. others.
And I don't give a rodent's rectum about we call it.

[Folly]

Why is it so important to skeptics that their collective endeavors not be called a movement?

I like the answers already, but I think there's a slightly different angle too.

My personal opinion is that a large part of the reason it often gets a negative response is because it's often brought up in the context of certain "itneresting" individuals ascribing some negative trait (often imaginary) to the skeptical movement, with the implication that most skeptics have this flaw. Not naming names, or anything. It's easier to slander a non-existent group than a real person.

Sure, there's a skeptical movement. Of course it has a zillion different goals, and is composed of thousands of groups which have a nodding acquaintance at best, so talking of "the skeptical movement" is of limited utility at best (as opposed to talking about a more concrete and cohesive group.)

[mijopaalmc]

I like the answers already, but I think there's a slightly different angle too.

My personal opinion is that a large part of the reason it often gets a negative response is because it's often brought up in the context of certain "itneresting" individuals ascribing some negative trait (often imaginary) to the skeptical movement, with the implication that most skeptics have this flaw. Not naming names, or anything. It's easier to slander a non-existent group than a real person.

Sure, there's a skeptical movement. Of course it has a zillion different goals, and is composed of thousands of groups which have a nodding acquaintance at best, so talking of "the skeptical movement" is of limited utility at best (as opposed to talking about a more concrete and cohesive group.)

I completely agree with your first and second paragraphs in letter and your third in spirit. It has never been my contention that there is a "One, Holy, and Apostolic Skeptical Movement", or, as it is more often called the "Organized Skeptical Movement". However, I find the seeming cognitive disconnect between there being social groupings of skeptics drawn together by their skepticism and there being social movements based on skepticism (which is what I mean by "skeptical movements") very frustrating. I have given the examples of the Civil Rights Movement and the Reformation as vast social movements that resemble that set of all skeptical movements in that many disparate societies and organization that were conceptually related by a set of common goals.

However, there have been many movements throughout human history. Looking just within Christianity, which itself was collection of social movements conceptually untied by their belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior before it received the official sanction of the Roman Empire, there are a multitude social movements the individual communities of which were conceptually united by shared goals but that did not necessarily agree on details of how to achieve them. Early hermetic and monastic movements strove to achieve salvation by renouncing worldly pleasures. The Reformation, the Restoration, and the Great Awakenings were all movements aimed at reforming, restoring, or revive the Church to its former glory and purity. However, no-one would claim that since there were many hermits and monastic communities with differing opinions on how best to achieve salvation, hermeticism or monasticism did not exist. Similarly, no-one would claim that, because the Reformation, the Restoration, and the Great Awakenings gave rise to many feuding denominations, those events never happened. Nonetheless, it seems that self-identified skeptics seem to be claiming just that about the relationship that individual skeptical societies and organizations bear to the abstracted "skeptical movement": since these skeptical societies and organizations are disparate in some of their goals, a decentralized movement of autocephalous skeptical societies and organization does not exist.

How does the Protestantism of Luther, Calvin, Sattler, et alia and their goal to reform the Catholic Church differ so much from the skepticism of Randi, Dawkins, Shermer, et alia and their goal to improve society through critical thinking and scientific research that the former constituted the Reformation and the latter doesn't constitute a skeptical movement (or skeptical movements)?

[ReligionStudent]

I'm sorry that you think that way, but just because you think things are a certain way doesn't make them so. I have tried to demonstrate to you through empirical evidence of what skeptics say about themselves in their own words that there is a set of beliefs and goals that transcends individual skeptical organizations. I don't know why you continue to reject it.

Probably one aspect that unites all of the groups together, at least philosophically, is their desire to effect change through education:

While Australian Skeptics does not have an explicitly educational provision in their mission statement, it do provide educational or informational resources like the other skeptical organizations cited:

Similar comparisons can be made for other points in the mission statements. Needless to say skeptical organizations and societies, while not branches of some nefarious Skeptical Movement, do have common beliefs, goals, and methods which makes them manifestations of a decentralized social movement based on skepticism. This that of course not ever skeptic is involved in a skeptical movement. I'm not trying to accuse (as I think the so-appropriately named quasi-concern troll) is that of trying to perpetuate "Skeptical Orthodoxy" without regard to real knowledge much like fundamentalism in religion does. Rather, I'm just trying to point out that constantly denying the existence of skeptical movements (or movements based on skepticism, or whatever you want to call them) runs contrary to the well-accepted and well-observed phenomenon of social movements being the collective action of individuals who share common beliefs and goals. I therefore wonder if there is some advantage to skeptics in the claim that there are no skeptical movements.

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is Originally Posted by New England Skeptical Society
To educate the public about the principles and necessity of skepticism and critical thinking in our society.
[...]
To promote higher standards of education, especially in the areas of science and critical thinking skills.


All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Originally Posted by Irish Skeptics
To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims. Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Originally Posted by New England Skeptical Society
To gather and disseminate information of interest to skeptics. Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

[Moochie]

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.


I agree.

I wonder if "mijopaalmc" is writing/has written a thesis and is trying to make it stick.

M.

[mijopaalmc]

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

You know its amazing the mental gymnastics that people will perform to deny that there are no skeptical movements. Honestly, I thought that one of the things that annoyed posters here about woos was that, when confronted with the falsity of their assertions and the truth of the counterassertions, they move the goal posts to preserve the possibility that their pet theory might still be true. While I admit that I have used the phrases "self-identified skeptics" and "drawn together by skepticism", I think that requirement that these organization and societies explicitly state that they use skepticism is a bit absurd, especially since most of those that don't, at least those that I have cited that don't, are those that use "skeptics" in their title. Additionally, Wikipedia (which I know is not the be all and end all of human knowledge) offers two definitions "skepticism" as:


In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to


an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.
(Merriam–Webster)

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about


the limitations of knowledge
a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing
the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values
a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment
a lack of confidence in positive motives for human conduct or positive outcomes for human enterprises, that is, cynicism and pessimism
(Keeton, 1962).

The particular brand of skepticism to which skeptical organizations and societies prescribe may not include all aspects of the above definitions; but it needn't because "skepticism" merely includes any of the above aspects. Therefore, any groups that engage in "systematic testing" as it is claimed that most of the organizations whose mission statements I have cited do are engaging in skepticism and are therefore skeptical. Since the action is collective in nature and is promoted to the community at large as a more acceptable way of conducting social interactions, such organizations represent manifestation of a decentralized skeptical social movement.

Why do people find the data I have presented unconvincing or the analogies I have tried to draw false?

[John Jackson]

You know its amazing the mental gymnastics that people will perform to deny that there are no skeptical movements.

I think the original term was "organised skeptical movement".

That term was never defined and so all that has occurred is that people have interpreted it to mean what they want it to mean and so everyone thinks they're winning the argument.

The fact is that no-one is winning any argument as the argument was never defined.

[ReligionStudent]

You know its amazing the mental gymnastics that people will perform to deny that there are no skeptical movements. Honestly, I thought that one of the things that annoyed posters here about woos was that, when confronted with the falsity of their assertions and the truth of the counterassertions, they move the goal posts to preserve the possibility that their pet theory might still be true. While I admit that I have used the phrases "self-identified skeptics" and "drawn together by skepticism", I think that requirement that these organization and societies explicitly state that they use skepticism is a bit absurd, especially since most of those that don't, at least those that I have cited that don't, are those that use "skeptics" in their title. Additionally, Wikipedia (which I know is not the be all and end all of human knowledge) offers two definitions "skepticism" as:




The particular brand of skepticism to which skeptical organizations and societies prescribe may not include all aspects of the above definitions; but it needn't because "skepticism" merely includes any of the above aspects. Therefore, any groups that engage in "systematic testing" as it is claimed that most of the organizations whose mission statements I have cited do are engaging in skepticism and are therefore skeptical. Since the action is collective in nature and is promoted to the community at large as a more acceptable way of conducting social interactions, such organizations represent manifestation of a decentralized skeptical social movement.

Why do people find the data I have presented unconvincing or the analogies I have tried to draw false?


I don't think I am moving goal posts at all. You brought up various unlinked groups to show evidence for the skeptical movement this thread began talking about. This thread began talking about one linked organized skeptic movement. I fail to see how a group of different groups with different stated goals is a single organized movement.

My critique of their stated goals is based on this. When I first stated that they were not skeptic movements someone said they were about education and making people understand skepticism or compared them to the different groups in the civil rights movement that did not agree but worked toward similar ends.

I think they all list largely seperate ends, and one clear difference is between skeptical education and the investigation of frauds. I think one teaches methodology and possibly works for social acceptance of skeptics (that is what I would call a skeptic movement). The other goal that most seem to have is testing, which I think is more about people not being taken in by frauds and allowing such frauds to dominate the realm of discourse. I don't think this is necessarily about teaching skeptical methodology and I certainly do not think it is about social betterment for skeptics. This is a scientific persuit, one might as well call something like the IAA a skeptic movement since it attempts to use scientific methodology in exposing forgeries (to what success is another discussion).

[Foster Zygote]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps we could even name this tactic after T'ai Chi? Whenever someone is deliberately vague about defining his/her position with the intent of attacking other's positions without having to defend his/her own it can be called "Pulling a T'ai Chi".

[blutoski]

If this "skeptical movement" is so "organized", it must be easy to list all those who are "organized" in it.

Otherwise, where's the "organized" part?

Firstly, it's not possible because of privacy. The BCSkeptics have about 1,000 members. CSI has something like 100,000, and if you want a sampling of JREF members, browse through the JREF Forum Members List, and see who checked off "I am a member".

Secondly, the analogy is either ignorant or intentionally misleading. Consider: I don't think anybody has a list of the names of the people who attended Dr. Martin Luther King's speech at the reflecting pool, but I'm pretty sure I'd call that 'organized'. I'm pretty sure there was a 'movement' for equal rights for blacks in the '60s, even though there were hundreds of 'more or less aligned' societies/organizations/informal groups involved.

The point is that people were organized to work together for social change, and others who shared the goals supported them informally. This is what makes a movement.

Skeptics are doing this, too.

[blutoski]

Are you hard of thinking?

As I've said elsewhere on this board, I belong to a PC user group that's affiliated with similar groups all over the world. If you referred to the members of these groups as belonging to an "organized PC movement" they'd quite rightly think you a sandwich short of a picnic.

M.

Nobody claimed this was sufficient. The vital piece of the puzzle is advocacy for change. I doubt your PC user group has a lobbyist in Washington. I doubt you have 'media action committees' to monitor local media outlets, and write responses in the name of their PC society. I doubt you write letters to your MP to promote change in your riding. And so on.

[blutoski]

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.

C'mon. You're saying you really believe that the New England Skeptical Society "hardly" has anything to do with skepticism?

Please.

[CFLarsen]

It is amazing how few of these groups actually use the term skepticism. If there is a Skeptic movement, it is apparently very closeted.

The only one of the top half to mention skepticism is

All of the others, and this one too, seem to be more concerned with general educational standards, science and critical thinking, and issues of paranormal claims. While all of these may be tied to skepticism, educational standards is too broad to be called a skeptic movement, science and critical thinking is a much broader topic, which while dependent on skeptical methodology, isn't really a skeptic movement as much as a science movement, and paranormal investigation is not a skeptic movement either, but a series of investigation.

The second group of quotes mentions it skepicism or skeptics twice:
Which clearly has more to do with paranormal/"questionable" claims
Which sounds more like a clipping service for skeptics.

Now I am not saying these groups do not house skeptics etc, but their focii seem to be more on general science and "questionable claims", by making them a skeptical movement, you overlook the manifold other aspects of their work, and upplay a term they hardly even use in their own self definition.


How would you describe SkepticReport?

[Moochie]

Nobody claimed this was sufficient. The vital piece of the puzzle is advocacy for change. I doubt your PC user group has a lobbyist in Washington. I doubt you have 'media action committees' to monitor local media outlets, and write responses in the name of their PC society. I doubt you write letters to your MP to promote change in your riding. And so on.

You're correct in all of the above. For achieving those ends we have the Australian Computer Society -- bloody elitist bunch of dweebs, too.

And I am not a member.

And I am still not convinced of an "organized skeptical movement."


M.

[blutoski]

And I am still not convinced of an "organized skeptical movement."

You're conflating two claims:

1. that there is such a thing as "organized skepticism"
2. that there is such a thing as "a skeptical movement"

Organized skepticism is part of a skeptical movement.

The same way that Susan B Anthony and the National Women's Suffrage Association was part of a women's equality movement. So was the National Women's Party. They all had similar goals, but approached them in different ways. Total membership in these groups was only in the thousands, but millions of women were involved in the protests they organized.

Nothing gets done without organization. Nothing.

This is one of the reasons I spend less time on the forum than I did even a few months ago. I've taken the Kiless approach: online communities are interesting to visit once and awhile, but they don't do... anything.

[blutoski]

My only quarrel with the term "organized skeptical movement" is the lack of definition. I don't have any aversion to the words or to the notion of a movement. The problem is that the phrase is being used in a deliberately vague and undefined way (mainly by our resident quasi-concern troll). It's seemingly used to tar all skeptics with the same brush, but when challenged, he retreats behind the vagueness of the term.

It's akin to referring to the "scientific establishment" or "the elite." It's much easier to slag off a vaguely defined group, because when presented with contrary evidence, you can say "oh, I don't think of X as being part of that group." Sort of a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is a pretty lucid concern. Thanks for clarifying.

Indeed, I think part of the reason skeptics recoil from the assertion is that they are responding to the perception that the expression "organized skepticism" can only be pejorative.

I'm reminded of friends in the 1980s who emigrated from Poland. Another friend referred to them as "a bunch of communists," and it took them about three years to understand that in Canada, that was actually an insult rather than an observation.

Organized skepticism exists, has an agenda, has goals, has a vision, wants the world to change, and invests time, money, and effort to acheive this. The forum member who thinks that's a bad thing may have some thinking to do.

[Myriad]

I hope you folks sort this out soon. I'm dying to find out whether I'm part of an organized skeptical movement or not.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[quixotecoyote]

Would we get helmets? I like helmets.

[strider]

Where do I go to sign up?

[ReligionStudent]

Would we get helmets? I like helmets.

That would have to be voted on and aproved by a 2-1 margin and then signed into enactment by the head skeptical non-believer (its very hard to get him or her to do this because he or she does not believe many things are necessary without lots of studies).

Of course then it has to wait for the appropriations commitee to allocate the funds.

Then it goes to the purchasing branch of the supplies arm in the non-hierarchical division.

And then we get helmets.

[Darat]

I hope you folks sort this out soon. I'm dying to find out whether I'm part of an organized skeptical movement or not.

Respectfully,
Myriad


You've got a medal you must be!

[mijopaalmc]

I hope you folks sort this out soon. I'm dying to find out whether I'm part of an organized skeptical movement or not.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You do realize that the "organized skeptical movement" is a straw man of both those who dislike skeptics and skeptics themselves. On the one hand, skeptic-"haters" refer to it because it makes skepticism look like a huge monolithic means of social control that is dedicated to stamping out all opposition, much like a religion. Skeptics, on the other hand, like to refer to it because they know that it is used most often as a "hater" canard and therefore allows then to pass off any phrase that resembles "organized skeptical movement" as such.

Such a dismissal of any phrase that contains some form of "skeptic" and "movement" seems to, in my observation, allows skeptics to ignore the possibility there are influential self-styled skeptics exert a certain amount of social power and that such social power maybe the reason that people reject an idea rather than it actual truth or falsity.

[athon]

I think the original term was "organised skeptical movement".

That term was never defined and so all that has occurred is that people have interpreted it to mean what they want it to mean and so everyone thinks they're winning the argument.

The fact is that no-one is winning any argument as the argument was never defined.

Good point. I wanted it quoted so people could see this again.

The term has no strict meaning, so it is left up to the meaning people gather from it; the implications of the term as well as the dictionary meaning. Many people don't seem to see the level of organisation or energy one would expect when confronted with the term 'organised movement'. Sure, call it that if it makes you comfortable, and you might technically be correct. But what baggage comes along with the term that is unintentional?

Athon

[blutoski]

Where do I go to sign up?

* http://www.randi.org/jref/join.html