Your story of meeting skepticism.

[Floppit]

I thought it would be interesting to know how people met the word in it's appropriate usage, as descriptor of critical thinking or how critical thinking was first met as a subject in it's own right (don't want to get to hung up on one word).

I had various exposures, all later in life, at least later than I would have liked. MY first was my now husband who introduced me to Aristotle and a few of his basic guidelines. At first it frustrated me that what sounded right could be wrong (or not right) just because it broke a rule, but the frustration was only from not understanding why and as soon as the 'whys' began to grow so did my liking for it. Still, I didn't get the importance.

My second flirtation with it was a guy online who was heavily into debate and wrote about the common fallacies - this I liked very much and read around it for myself, but it led to nothing deeper.

For years I read the New Scientist loving the columns written by the likes of A. C. Grayling without really getting that there was something more behind it. I was very interested in science though, especially regarding the brain and mind. The interest in the brain led me to Steven Novella's website and I LOVED it - finally the word 'skeptic' as something more than an 'anti' kicked in, hence my arrival here.

Now I consider how to think the most important subject of all, it has travelled from a blip on the outskirts of my radar to becoming the underpinning principle of the radar!

Overall my journey has been very much about finding and being attracted to the kind of thinking I enjoyed anyway, I have no concept of what it would have been like to have been taught it prior to my own predilection for it - but then perhaps the liking was always there.

How did others here meet the subject of critical thinking in it's own right?

[Croydon Bob]

How did others here meet the subject of critical thinking in it's own right?

An interesting topic.

In the early days of the first Skeptics in the Pub meeting, when there were only 20 to 30 of us attending, we used to talk about this a lot.

Many of the skeptics around then used to claim that they were born skeptics. They didn't ever believe in Santa, had worked out that God didn't exist before they were 10, etc. I can't claim any such thing myself.

My drift into skepticism was very gradual. At a young age I read Science Fiction. This lead to also reading woo. By the time I was 14 I'd read Lobsang Rampa, George Adamski and loads of other bollox. Von Daniken was the big new thing. Initially I believed it all because it was in a book. The more I read the less I believed. The different books contradict each other, they're always claiming a breakthrough is just around the corner (even in an old book I picked up at a jumble sale), etc. I became more cynical and sceptical but retained an interest. I read the Fortean Times and went to their first convention in 1990ish. By this time I was pretty much a skeptic but was not part of the skeptic movement and didn't call myself a skeptic. I just sat there laughing at the loonies claiming that alien abductions were real, moon landings were faked, etc.

It was only meeting Skott Campbell at SF pub meetings (2000ish) and his decision to start a Skeptics pub meeting that exposed me to the skeptical movement proper. Not that it changed my mind about anything, I'd got there all on my own.

I find it interesting that some Skeptics are now less interested in reacting to the loonies who promote ghosts and UFOs and there's a move towards distancing ourselves from woo. It still seems to me that the point is to shine the torch of reason onto woo, not ignore it.

[afd]

Hi

That's a great question!

I benefited from having very lateral thinking and open minded parents who were not religious but showed me all kinds of cultures and religions as a child. I also went to a no-denominational school (from the age of 11) and had some great teachers - the most important being my biology teacher who made us all read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. I think that cemented, not just a belief in evolution, but a way of thinking.

I took many many years for me to care about any of this until I had children with my catholic wife and they now go to a catholic school. I see it as my duty to show them the same breadth in the world that my parents did - partly as a counterbalance to theism at school.

I was lucky enough to start that journey reading A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. . I have bought this book for several people and found it dazzling in ideas and breadth.

As I read I also discovered the Skeptics Guide to the Universe and Point of Enquiry podcasts - this leads me here, JREF and all over the place!

What I find concerning is the fragmentation of the sceptic movement. It seems that the nature of sceptics is poor at devising methods for proliferation and growth. I heard a great PoI show about Skeptics 2.0 and what the next step after websites, forums, podcasts and blogs was. The conclusions sounded weak to me, and I feel that the movement will suffer as a result.

I think ultimately this will turn me off the skeptic movement - although I will personally remain a skeptic. I think that I am looking for a more active movement that will combat theism and pseudo science not just by "debunking" it, but by providing a full set of mission statements, codes, ethics, morals and so on. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the human mind. Skeptics seem to have a habit of creating vacuums whilst being afraid to say what should fill them.

Is this concern just mine?

[Floppit]

I am looking for a more active movement that will combat theism and pseudo science not just by "debunking" it, but by providing a full set of mission statements, codes, ethics, morals and so on. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the human mind. Skeptics seem to have a habit of creating vacuums whilst being afraid to say what should fill them.

Is this concern just mine?

That sounds like hell to me! I'm totally not in the camp that we 'should' be debunking morn till night, I think it's a poor alternative that creates more barriers than it overcomes. It seems to me a bit like trying to send fish one by one to hungry islanders rather than an instruction manual on how to make a net and build a boat! Moreover, it means that believers come into contact with reasoning at their least receptive, on the one (or two!) subjects that they have the strongest confirmation bias and the most powerful emotional attachment.

When I wrote the OP I was thinking back to a time when I didn't even know things were written about critical thinking, I knew what it meant, I'd answered essay questions that required me to 'critically evaluate...' but I thought it to be a solo sport, a simple application of effort rather than something discussed, refined, and most importantly has been around long enough to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I don't think unreasonable ideas can be thwarted with reason unless reason itself has become an idea, been engaged with, adopted. I'd rather talk politics with a christian than atheism, the former has more chance of giving a means to build a bloody boat because the reasoning it contains is more likely to be received, will have less in the way of barriers and can be used elsewhere.


Nature might abhor a vacuum and after having briefly visited the RD forums I would agree to some extent, but I don't see what there is to gain by replacing one pope (person who's words are infallible) with another.

GAH!! Derailed a bit - this topic keeps coming up and up, I reckon we all want to get it right but somehow miss each other's points. Maybe a new thread? I think it's worth the effort of debate, even if the debate is long and hard going.

[afd]

Sorry, i didn't mean to derail. I just thought that in addition to saying how I got into it I was looking to the future too.

[Floppit]

Sorry, i didn't mean to derail. I just thought that in addition to saying how I got into it I was looking to the future too.

I meant me not you afd. I thought your answer was fine I just didn't agree with the how things should be bit and ended up answering you rather than the OP. My fault.

[Admin]

I was always sceptical by nature, even as a kid. One of those 'born skeptics' I guess.

However, despite being a 'science head' most of my younger life, I'd never come across skepticism. I started my own business around 12 years ago and quickly got to realise that what might seem like little decisions to people working in big companies - such as should I spend £3,000 on a particular advertising campaign - we're enormous decisions to me as my income (and house!) depended on me getting decisions right.

So I used a lot of rationalism (using my head rather than gut feeling) and always looked for evidence in choosing options and measured results carefully etc. Through that, I sort of developed the 'doubt and inquiry' approach not only to business, but to all sorts of decisions.

Then, 7 or 8 years ago, I must have been looking around for something or other to do with evidence-based decision making and somehow stumbled upon James Randi's website and started reading his Swift commentary. That was when I discovered that this rational and empirical approach to life and issues was called 'skepticism'!

I was really pleased to have found that not only did my way of thinking have a name, but that other people actively embraced the method too. It was also a great educational experience to look into the background of skepticism and learn so much about critical thinking and how to evaluate claims and ideas. My ignorance was also revealed! I was in my mid 30s and hadn't even heard of logical fallacies, never mind how to spot them.

I went through a phase of 'debunking/crusading skepticism' - the type where you try to challenge everyone and everything and save the world from the rising tide of irrationality (which I note is still very popular amongst people new to skepticism today) - but I soon worked out that that wasn't really effective and I was just following the crowd (it's what skeptics do, right?)

Anyway, these days I'm much more of a purist when it comes to skepticism. I think it's a great way of thinking and looking at the world and its real purpose is in the acquisition of (justified) knowledge.

So I had really sort of stumbled upon skepticism by being predisposed to a scientific way of thinking (I've never believed anything remotely religious, mystical or paranormal, for example) and by life's challenges forcing me to react decisively but logically and rationally.

I love learning; but of course, I want my knowledge to be true (or as certain as we can get) as that's more important to me than holding beliefs just because they are 'nice'. In short: I'd rather have knowledge than be entertained by the lack of it.