What do skeptics debate?

This seems to be a pretty standard way of doing formal debates: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=23

That would be quite easy to do. Just get two people who either disagree on a subject or wish to take a different stance on a subject and then let them post alternately.

It would be moderated (i.e. posts would be checked for possible inflammatory remarks, issues of ambiguity etc.) before the posting goes live.

Obviously exchanges like these would be slow, but (hopefully) of high quality.

But there are other ways we could do things as stated above.

Another one here with the standard set up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259928

However, they link the debate to a 'peanut gallery' (just another thread really) that is used for observers to comment. That's more like what Dr S was after. We could do it in a sub forum of the debating forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

Perhaps it would make for a useful conversation we could have to fill the gap between 7pm and 7.30pm at a Skeptics in the Pub meeting?

---

Good idea. See you Monday?

I love the idea - but I'm also a bit scared by it, still love it though!

Totally off topic bit:
I feel a bit hypocritical starting a few threads then disappearing a bit. Hubby has been coming home for visits most afternoons so I've been shoe horning 5 more hours in every day (it doesn't fit!), and PT work. He's home tomorrow but off work till at least the middle of May, I don't really know how it'll pan out but hopefully I'll get some time here.

Save a seat for me, I've not lost interest. O0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Jackson

This seems to be a pretty standard way of doing formal debates: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=23

That would be quite easy to do. Just get two people who either disagree on a subject or wish to take a different stance on a subject and then let them post alternately.

It would be moderated (i.e. posts would be checked for possible inflammatory remarks, issues of ambiguity etc.) before the posting goes live.

Obviously exchanges like these would be slow, but (hopefully) of high quality.

But there are other ways we could do things as stated above.

---

Looking at these the problem for me is that the argument can get rather turgid.

I wonder whether a consensus statement approach would be better, one or more selected topics are agreed, a group of individuals agree to tackle the evidence base on said subjects, they then get together for a day and review the evidence base and produce an agreed (readable) summary of the evidence base with an analysis of the strength/weakness of the available evidence and the consensus of the most reasonable position given available evidence, summarised and presented in plain English.

This kind of thing that could be done as a satellite symposium of the UKS meeting.

Once a position is published on line, then a single named individual (perhaps for 3 year terms) could be responsible for maintaining this consensus position. Comments could be added (perhaps on a linked thread) and where new evidence is presented that requires a rethink, this could be presented to the original group for consideration and the consensus position altered (or amendments added) over time.

I appreciate that the notion of a consensus position will be an anathema to many here, but in reality if this is a consensus reached by application of critical thinking to currently available evidence, this should set a standard to be emulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pebble

I appreciate that the notion of a consensus position will be an anathema to many here

---

Consensus, agree with people, are you mad. :cheesy:

Did bolding, italicising, underlining, increasing font and colouring red show how weird the concept of agreeing is to me.

Although I do agree with Pebble that this is probably an anathema to me and many others here (no names mention, but you know who you are). O0

Is there any reason that both consensus and debate couldn't exist?

From an outsider point of view I reckon there's already alot of consensus here which gets displayed in full on issues such as ghosts or gods.

If one side of a debate gets turgid then surely readers will stop reading giving the speaker a disadvantage. I can get as fuzzy as the next person but I'm aware that getting over complex is part and parcel of not having truly clarified my own thoughts first. The skill to use language well enough to portray complex ideas concisely and in a way that engages the reader is as important as researching those same ideas, one without the other is error prone and vulnerable to self flattery.

Consensus and debate can, and should coexist. Sceptics must accept debate points and make them their own, if the debate points are valid. This is how we accept provisional truths which can be factual until better information becomes present.

I find formal debates terminally dull. I guess it must our 'bite-size' culture affecting me. I'm really not sure it's the way to go stir up interest in any subject. But, that's just me, I'm sure others will love debates.

I expect if it was left to me we'd have '20 things you never knew about skepticism' ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinoc

Good idea. See you Monday?

---

Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobdezon

Consensus and debate can, and should coexist. Sceptics must accept debate points and make them their own, if the debate points are valid. This is how we accept provisional truths which can be factual until better information becomes present.

---

It would be nice if it were possible. Unfortunately what I see in a lot of skeptics forums, podcasts, etc., is a set of entrenched positions, with people forming into gangs to bully the person who dares to bring up a point of view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy, rather than examining the subject politely and seeing where it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinoc

Unfortunately what I see in a lot of skeptics forums, podcasts, etc., is a set of entrenched positions, with people forming into gangs to bully the person who dares to bring up a point of view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy, rather than examining the subject politely and seeing where it goes.

---

I don't think that behaviour is confined to skeptics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinoc

It would be nice if it were possible.

---

It is, I can assure you.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately what I see in a lot of skeptics forums, podcasts, etc., is a set of entrenched positions, with people forming into gangs to bully the person who dares to bring up a point of view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy, rather than examining the subject politely and seeing where it goes.

---

This happens quite a lot. The problem is, those sceptics think they are adhering to a formal position. Scepticism is not a position, it is a method. If they do not apply methodology, then in all fairness they are not sceptics. This is how I distinguish between real sceptics, and psuedosceptics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulder

I don't think that behaviour is confined to skeptics.

---

Of course it isn't. But the core belief of skepticism should be that there are no core beliefs of skepticism. We make a feature out of our supposed open-mindedness, but sadly we don't always practice what we ... ummm ... preach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trinoc

We make a feature out of our supposed open-mindedness, but sadly we don't always practice what we ... ummm ... preach.

---

Like the way politicians are always moral and law abiding ...