Growing Skepticism.

[Floppit]

Do you think swelling the ranks of skeptics in touch with each other rather than floating around out of touch would be the best way forward for spreading the concepts?

I was playing with the idea of what the result would be if UK skeptics clubbed together to stick an ad in a mag like 'New Scientist' - I read NS for years before I found this place or anything like it.

If numbers grow, perhaps from those already on the same wavelength the skills base increases making future action easier. Also there's perhaps some direct benefit through the beginings of a viral approach?

I went to a summer show yesterday and saw an Alpha Course stand worded largely to attract those who already believe at some level and I thought 'maybe they have something there' (not the god bit!).

[Graham Lappin]

I think the problem here is to assume that "skeptics" are an homogeneous group that will club together. The skeptical community (whatever that is) tend to be free thinkers with highly individualistic views, with the capacity to debate their point of view very powerfully. I suspect "clubbing together" will almost be an anathema to many of them.

Sorry not my thing but isn't a alpha course "a practical introduction to the Christian faith"? That's what Wikipedia says anyway and when has that ever been wrong?

You may well be able to bring together the faithful as faith by definition is something you believe in without thinking about or believe in, knowing it can't be true (the former being ignorance and the latter being denial). That's the diametric opposite of skepticism, isn't it?

[lost thought]

Perhaps,
I'm skeptical join me in my skeptism at UKSkeptics.com and disagree with every one or agree if you feel like it.
Don't sit on the fence some of them have sharp points.

[Mulder]

The people you need to target are those who are skeptical by nature without realising it. Because they don't recognise themselves as skeptics they are never likely to Google the term!

[Graham Lappin]

The people you need to target are those who are skeptical by nature without realising it. Because they don't recognise themselves as skeptics they are never likely to Google the term!

Not saying I disagree with you but I would ask how you think it might be achieved?

(I am doing this from a Blackberry again and so I hope it works).

[Mulder]

Not saying I disagree with you but I would ask how you think it might be achieved?

Perhaps by getting skeptical articles onto websites which would attract people who might be skeptical without knowing it. There are many scientific 'hobby' type websites, for instance.

[Admin]

A great way of targeting people is to write good quality articles and publish them on the UKS website*. Most people looking for info use search engines so the best way to target them is to get your content up there where they can find it (i.e. not in a blog).

If we diversified a bit from paranormal and alt. med then we might reach a wider audience.

But now I'd have to go on about teamwork etc. and I can't be arsed...





* because it has a very good Google ranking and the articles rank highly because of this - especially when they are well optimized.

[lost thought]

Do you have Doubts
Do you have Questions
Do you know who to Turn To
Myths to question,
Psychics to read,
Pseudoscience to kick,
Come to Ukskeptics.com
No question to dumb to ask no answer to technical to understand.

Go on you know you want to, Let us seduce you with the truth.

[Dr B]

No question to dumb to ask.....

Hhhhhmmm I'm skeptical....

[DrS]

If there's something strange in your neighborhood
Who you gonna call?
THE SKEPTICS!

If there's something weird and it don't look good
Who you gonna call?
THE SKEPTICS!

If you're seeing things running through your head
Who can you call?
THE SKEPTICS!

An invisible man sleeping in your bed
OW! Who you gonna call?
THE SKEPTICS!

I ain't afraid of no ghost ...

[Nukapai]

Diversity = good. Must admit the upcoming conference doesn't really grab me (for instance) because I've never really got into hot debates with people who believe in ghosts and paranormal. There is only so much exhausting woo my head will hold and I haven't got the energy or interest in the ghost stuff. There are various other topics that could widen the net for people.

[Floppit]

I fully agree with this:

If we diversified a bit from paranormal and alt. med then we might reach a wider audience.

But now I'd have to go on about teamwork etc. and I can't be arsed...

...and this:

The people you need to target are those who are skeptical by nature without realising it. Because they don't recognise themselves as skeptics they are never likely to Google the term!

Yep - it's a diverse group that at times needs a thick skin but still worth it. Not everyone is going to want a welcoming culture, or a larger and more diverse group, but if numbers do grow so will the number of people who actually want critical thought to be something that grows, rather than the designated 'thinkers' forming an elitist club for intellectual masterbation.

Perhaps by getting skeptical articles onto websites which would attract people who might be skeptical without knowing it. There are many scientific 'hobby' type websites, for instance.

I think I'd been reading the NS for about half a decade before it dawned on me to go hunt the skeptics down - had 'they' as a group rather than merely a concept appeared sooner I'd have had a few more years practice to get clever!

I found this place after browsing Steven Novella's site for a while (my favourite skeptic in terms of enjoying his articles). What about reciprocal links to what's already out there?

[Dr B]

Diversity = good. Must admit the upcoming conference doesn't really grab me (for instance) because I've never really got into hot debates with people who believe in ghosts and paranormal.

But the conference covers a wider variety of issues and approaches including skepticism, sociology, cultural research, neuroscience, psychology as well as parapsychology - so its not at all just about ghosts. Sounds to me like you would benefit a great deal from it Why not read the background info on the topics and speakers?

There is only so much exhausting woo my head will hold and I haven't got the energy or interest in the ghost stuff. There are various other topics that could widen the net for people.

I think its fine to say an area does not interest you (which might pertain to one or two talks in a ten talk conference) - but it's a misrepresentation to automatically assume that the talks on ghosts will be woo. In fact - you really should take a closer look - there are talks on all sides.

[Admin]

Skepticism is a methodology, not a position, and so it can be applied anywhere that evidence exists or decisions need to be made on it.

So areas like history, psychology and anthropology as well as consumer issues could just as well be served by applying skepticism as with topics like the paranormal.

It has always surprised me why we seem to concentrate on things like the paranormal and alt. med. I'm not saying they aren't worthwhile, but why are we so restrictive?

I think it's easy to simply carry on with how things have always been done but I'd really like to see skeptics expand on what we deal with.

I will (he says again ) be doing some critical thinking stuff for the website but as I'm taking time out from skepticism to concentrate on getting a degree, it will have to wait until later in the year.

That will be a platform from which to build the website further. I envisage tackling various topics/issues through a truly skeptical/critical thinking approach - and this will be web based content.

I have the idea in mind, just not the time to tackle it at the moment.

[DrS]

I have time on my hands ... if there is anything you think could reasonably be delegated, I'm happy to help.