Skepticism: the defining battle.

[Admin]

No, I’m not talking about a battle with paranormalists, woo-woos (nice term), conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists. I wish to address why it is we seem to be in a constant battle over the definition of a Skeptic or skepticism.

One of the most frustrating things that I find in debating people is that it is quite clear that most of them have their own idea of what a skeptic is, but they are usually wrong: a skeptic, to most, is simply someone who opposes their beliefs.

I think that one of the biggest problems we have as skeptics is this false image that people have of us as close-minded cynics whose mission in life is to oppose and debunk the things that they believe in and anything out of the ordinary in general.

Whilst this situation is undoubtedly largely to blame on people’s ignorance, they don’t bother to find out what skepticism is about, I wonder what we can do to remedy the situation other than constantly pointing out what skepticism is in debates.

Skepticism is about finding the truth, not what you want to be true. Unfortunately the truth often doesn’t match people’s beliefs. This may be the heart of the problem; people’s desire to believe may be greater than their desire to know.

One problem is the believer/skeptic false dichotomy. How many people, and I'm as guilty as anyone, ask questions like: are you a believer or a skeptic? This is one reason why so many people equate skepticism as the conscious choice to disbelieve in things.

Another problem is explaining the difference between A Skeptic and being sceptical. Many people look up the dictionary meaning of sceptic and get something like, "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions" - that's OK but it's only half the story. It's not just about doubting and questioning things, it's about looking for answers too.

So how do we deal with this problem, any ideas?

[Jocky]

Hi there,

It's great to see a skeptic forum in the UK - I have been lurking in US-based skeptic sites for ages, and was wondering where all the sane people in this country were!

The most coherent attempt I've yet come across to create a unifying, positive skeptical identity is http://www.the-brights.net/.

A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Do you find this helpful?

[Nucular]

Hi Jocky :)

I have to confess, despite big names like Randi, Dawkins, Dennett et al. promoting the 'brights' movement, I'm not too keen myself. It's a bit... presumptuous? I dunno, it just makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. I can't imagine casually saying, "Well I'm a Bright, and..."

Indeed, do we have to have a unifying sceptical identity, or does that simply perpetuate the false dichotomy John Jackson mentions in the OP?

I think to my mind, one of the things that could be done to clarify the sceptical approach and role is to emphasise the link - or synonymity - between scepticism and the scientific outlook. It's true people need to know more about how science works, but I think it comes as a genuine surprise for many to learn that sceptics generally consider their approach to the world to be akin to the scientific method, or that the scientific method is a sort of codified sceptical empiricism.

[Admin]

Welcome Jocky.

I'm a member of the UK Brights, although most of my efforts are involved with UKS.

I agree with Nucular however, the major bugbear I have with the Brights is.... you guessed it: the name!

I think the Brights movement was a very laudable attempt to rebrand skepticism/rational thinking but the noun 'Bright' never really caught on as a meme as was initially hoped for.

I've thought about the identity issue several times but I just keep coming back to 'Skeptic' as the name of choice. It's certainly not ideal, as I pointed out, but using a different name just raises the same issue.

A Skeptic may be seen as someone negative, but then again a Bright may be seen as arrogant and condescending. It's all about perception of the label; the problem being that the antonym of bright is dim.

Names apart though, we're all batting for the same side and that's what matters.

[Eddiesilence]

'Brights' is a terrible name. I like the sentiment behind it, but it conjures up an aura of pompous hubris. I too return to 'skeptic,' but this term suffers from a fundamental problem, in that people generally don't know what it actually means.

Out of curiosity, what is the general feeling about the term 'humanist'?

[Jocky]

Yes, I too have a problem with the term 'Bright': as John said, it gives the appearance of alleging that anyone who's not one is a 'Dim'. Now while in many cases this may be true it doesn't help our cause any if others perceive skepticism as arrogant by definition. Ad hominem arguments against skeptical positions are common enough as it is, without giving 'believers' more ammunition.

More than once I've gone to the Brights website and thought "This is something we need, I ought to stand up and be counted here", but couldn't bring myself to click on Submit.

'Humanist' (as I understand it) is not exactly congruent with 'skeptic'. Humanists take a skeptical position on anything involving belief in the existence of deities, but does that necessarily connote a skeptical position on other things not directly related to supernaturalism? For instance, could one be a humanist and yet believe in Homeopathy, which is based on ludicrous pseudoscience but doesn't posit intervention by supernatural entities?

I agree with Nucular that the key defining point is applying a scientific methodology, an approach based on testable evidence. I love your phrase

the scientific method is a sort of codified sceptical empiricism

But how to sum it up in one word :-\

[chillzero]

Well, my response to this kind of question is usually - I'm just me.

I don't like to be labelled at all. I have a sceptical approach to things, but also have a hippy-like love for nature and natural forces. I am aware of the need for technology, but don't personally like to be so surrounded by it as I am (I work in IT :-\). I am quite pragmatic, but also have a creative artiste's dreaminess of vision.

I don't fit well in many slots.

[Admin]

I think 'humanist' gives an anti-religion (or deity) image. One reason I like 'Skeptic' is that it is wide-ranging. It's more an approach to things than a stance on them.

I know what you mean chillzero - using a label can compartmentalise you or the perception of you. I guess that's why using a label causes so many problems.

The question is often asked, "what do skeptics believe in?"; usually because of the image of us as people who disbelieve in things.

My answer is that I believe in all things natural. The real wonders of nature are far more interesting (to me) than an unsubstantiated belief in the paranormal.

[Eddiesilence]

This might be splitting hairs, but indulge my pedantry for a moment!:

I often hear it said that religion, mmysticism or parapsychology is their belief system whereas science is mine. I think this is wrong: I don't need to believe, because observable reality prevents me needing to trust anything to faith. I feel that the question 'what do you believe?,' when asked of a scientific thinker, begs the question by presupposing some equivalence between empirical reality and a 'belief system'. Therefore, to answer the question directly would be to accept that science is a belief system. However, the scientific method is not an equivalent-but-opposite, belief system to religion, paranormal thinking, and so forth. It's not even in the same universe.

Carl Sagan's standard response to someone who asked 'do you believe in UFOs?' was to require the person to rephrase that question thus: 'what is the evidence for UFOs?'. Why bother believing?

I think in principle, this approach is applicable to every and all questions involving the concept of 'belief'. To summarize my attitude towards those who ask what I 'believe' as a skeptic: it is a nonsensical question; I don't believe in belief!


(Yes, I do realise this is over-simplistic, because I understand that by jettisoning the concept of 'belief' we can get into problems with subjects such as 'hard' metaphysical concepts involving intangible realities, which is why I regard my attitude to belief to be 'in principle' rather than a hard and fast line... But that's another thread entirely...)

[Admin]

The problem with 'belief' is that it is an equivocal term so when people are arguing over their beliefs they could be meaning different things.

I wrote this a while back: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/explanati...le=beliefs.php

It's not perfect and could do with rehashing (a lot of the early stuff was rushed) but the idea is to show that we can at least try to hold beliefs (i.e. not certain knowledge) that are justified and hopefully true.

Good point though Eddie. I have used the defence that I prefer to hold evidence based opinions rather than mere 'beliefs'.

[vbloke]

I think a lot of the problems skeptics have is the association with cynics.

We're seen more as naysayers and killjoys rather than a force for the integration of rationalism and science.

People like their cosy beliefs, they give them conmfort in hard times - then we come along and tell them that their beliefs are irrational and ill-informed, score minus one for the skeptic.

If we're going to make a positive contribution to society, we need to figure out a way to make skepticism cool. Whilst I admire Dawkins, Dennet et al, their rather dour nature belies our true stance - finding the truth and showing the universe for the beautiful thing it is rather than the mythical imaginings of people who have an agenda in faith.

What we need are a couple of charismatic figureheads, people who are easily recognised by the public, who aren't argumentative, downbeat or perceived as academic (which can turn people off), who we can parade in the media to show there's more to skepticism than putting people down for their beliefs.

We need to be a more cohesive entity, rather than a disparate collective to be truly effective. If the public like you, you can change attitudes and get things done because they're on your side, rather than against or indifferent to you.

I'd happily volunteer to be a figurehead. 8)

[Skepsis]

Hi everyone,

I thought I'd join in and offer my support. I have this nagging feeling that psychics and believers generally are winning the PR battle. We can come across as 'close-minded' because to all appearance that's just what we are - and with good reason. Being open-minded means being prepared to change your mind in the light of good evidence and in the general realm of 'the paranormal' there is no good evidence. Similarly I treat most alternative therapies with a great deal of skepticism but I am certainly prepared to change my mind should convincing evidence appear. That said it would have to be damn good evidence to convince me of homeopathy.

I was interested in vbloke's comments about making skepticism 'cool' and the need of a 'figurehead'. Even in the US I don't believe (IMHO) there is anyone to compare with Randi. He is utterly unique, a one-off who has inspired a generation (including me). The only other people in the US to really float my boat are Penn & Teller but they aren't necessarily everyone's cup of tea.

We have the problem that psychics and their ilk call the shots and we are only brought in to respond to something they say. As things stand they seem to set the agenda. The media only show interest for a couple of reasons. First they are often obliged to show 'balance' and even this seems to be decreasing. The second reason is if a psychic cheats some old lady out of her life savings in which case they will probably trot out another psychic to explain why this is appalling and "against spiritual law". Most TV shows are not remotely interested in coming to a conclusion, they delight (think Kilroy and Trisha) in seeing the fight continue ad infinitum.

What we need is a well funded TV series (preferably the BBC) that rips into paranormal claims and exposes them for what they are - a naked Emperor, but for some reason they won't do it!

Meanwhile best to all,

Skepsis (aka Tony Youens)

[vbloke]

What we need is a high profile psychic scandal to shake the media out of their current apathy.
Hopefully, if something comes from all the Selfridges nonsense, then we could use it as a big PR coup.

[Mojo]

What we need is a high profile psychic scandal to shake the media out of their current apathy.

If Derek Acorah's antics haven't achieved this...

[Muse]

Welcome Skepsis! Good to have you on board.

High profile scandal or not skeptics still need to be consistently better represented in the media both in terms of image portrayed and time air time allotted. Consistency is the key to turning the tide. The odd Derek Acorah or Selfridges scandal is not enough when you're up against the True Believer Syndrome in a psychic epidemic. Even the death of Sylvia Millecam in Holland after following a psychic's advice did not force a sea change in opinion there.

What is needed is a culture change. To do that skepticism needs to become more organised in order to become sexy to the masses. It needs to be better promoted in a positive light instead of being consistently and wrongly portrayed as a negative attribute more commonly associated with grumpy old men!

Recent examples of skeptic involvement in shows featuring fringe claims include Prof. Edzard Ernst, BBC2's Alternative Medicine, Chris French and Phillip Escoffey's presence on Britain's Psychic Challenge were extremely disappointing.

With BPA in particular, whilst the skeptics mentioned did a very good job, they were portrayed as stereotypical killjoys primarily required to lend a veneer of credibility and balance in a show that otherwise had neither so marked was its pro psychic bias. In this instance, I found Townhouse TV's exploitation of the role of the skeptic so offensive that it actually caused me to question the wisdom of their involvement in such a project!

The trouble is mysticism in all its forms sells and sells ad infinitum. Thats why the media love it and also why they hate skepticism. Skepticism reveals the truth, spoils the fun by stripping away the mystery so killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Now with a charismatic figurehead maybe this tide could turn. It would be a start - who knows given time perhaps the makings of a co-ordinated nationwide movement that could open up a lot of opportunities, eg. lobby for critical thinking skills teaching primary in schools, reform of the FMA, co-ordinate media appearences etc?

But the question is who?