|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2013 : 15:31:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
I'm only arguing that identifying as a capital S Skeptic is synonymous with scientific skepticism. |
No, not everywhere. That's what many people now refer to as "Bigfoot skepticism" and are increasingly leaving behind as irrelevant. That's the trend, young activists distancing themselves from the old "brand." And not because the movement's been too diluted, but because it's stuck in the past and refuses to change. I guess the old guard can't see the writing on the wall.
Skepticism, as a movement, is evolving. I think the scientific skeptics are going to find they can't control which issues the average skeptic wants to focus their time and energy on by scolding them.
|
Read the article. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 15:54:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Read the article. |
Ok, you are right. I won't comment again before I do. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 16:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
I'm only arguing that identifying as a capital S Skeptic is synonymous with scientific skepticism. |
No, not everywhere. That's what many people now refer to as "Bigfoot skepticism" and are increasingly leaving behind as irrelevant. That's the trend, young activists distancing themselves from the old "brand." And not because the movement's been too diluted, but because it's stuck in the past and refuses to change. I guess the old guard can't see the writing on the wall.
Skepticism, as a movement, is evolving. I think the scientific skeptics are going to find they can't control which issues the average skeptic wants to focus their time and energy on by scolding them.
|
Just for fun though, here are some things that the "old guard" are concerned with. And this will not be close to a complete list:
Climate change denial
Anti vaccination movement
Other Quackery, including the whole alt med industry (which every guard better be concerned with)
Religious hoaxes and frauds and dangerous ideas, including those pesky claims that arise from religious fundamentalism and religions like Scientology.
Keeping creationism out of public schools (related to the above, but needs its own task force.)
Psychic frauds (which includes a long list of claims from people and orginzations that currently fleece millions from peoples pockets, even today.)
Pseudoscientific claims and frauds. (Another area that is ongoing and will never stop being a problem.)
Scams (Another area that is ongoing and will never stop being a problem)
Junk Science (This fits into many of the above categories, but who better to fight it than scientific skeptics?)
Conspiracy theories
Cults
And oh yeah...
Bigfoot
And you know what? The truth about the cryptozoology and UFO stuff is it's just fucking fun. It's geeky fun. So to use that as an example of what the "old guard" really cares about is nothing but a silly strawman.
I should probably mention that the people who watch those shows like "Finding Bigfoot" are getting lessons in really bad science. So while it might be fun, there would be a serious downside to leaving those shows and the claims they make alone.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 17:32:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Keeping creationism out of public schools (related to the above, but needs its own task force.) |
And it's a purely political subject that references mainstream biology. And consumer protection is a moral issue, not something that is rigidly testable. And advocacy for good science education is another political issue. So let's please just drop the pretense that the skeptical movement has limited itself to fringe subjects amenable to scientific skepticism.
The movement is not now, nor has it ever been, pure. Those on the other "side" of the "scope debate" from you are seeking - at the very worst - to dirty the movement up a little bit more than it already is, not to take its virginity.| I should probably mention that the people who watch those shows like "Finding Bigfoot" are getting lessons in really bad science. So while it might be fun, there would be a serious downside to leaving those shows and the claims they make alone. |
Let's also stop attacking the straw man that people who want to expand the movement want scientific skeptics to quit debunking Bigfoot altogether. While they do need to be educated that these are on-going issues that require attention, they find them boring and are seeking newer and/or more exciting things to do with their skeptical skill-sets, and/or are looking for issues that are simply more relevant to their own lives. They are not seeking to prohibit the Bigfoot or UFO skeptics from doing what they're best at, they're just not interested.
[Edited to add the relevancy phrase.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 17:46:53 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Let's also stop attacking the straw man that people who want to expand the movement want scientific skeptics to quit debunking Bigfoot altogether. |
And let's stop attacking the straw man that people who are interested in limiting the scope of skepticism are even suggesting that people who want to broaden the scope are saying that we should stop debunking bigfoot. My point was that by using bigfoot as the description of what sci skeptics do is a strawman because it chooses one of the most trivial things skeptics are involved in to make its point. Or didn't my list make that clear.
Also, yeah. There's no reason to debunk creationism if we aren't going to use that to fight to keep it out of science classrooms. Political advocacy in matters of science has always been part of the mission. I challenge you to find someone who says it's not. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 18:07:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
... they find them boring and are seeking newer and/or more exciting things to do with their skeptical skill-sets, and/or are looking for issues that are simply more relevant to their own lives. |
So anti-vax and climate change denial are boring subjects and not really relevent to their lives. Okay then.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 18:50:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
So anti-vax and climate change denial are boring subjects and not really relevent to their lives. Okay then.
|
Okay, apparently I need to be more precise. They don't feel that those subjects are relevant to their own lives. They vaccinate their kids and recycle, so if asked point-blank, I'm sure they'd agree that those subjects are relevant to their lives. They'd just rather spend their free time being skeptical activists on other subjects.
These subjects are, obviously, relevant to everyone's lives. But so is international banking. There are more subjects of relevance to a person's life than they could ever hope to study and/or argue about. They get to choose what they want to spend their time on. Not the movement that's welcomed them in, asking for their support.
That's one thing that seems backwards. The people should drive the movement, not the other way around. "Tradition" is a poor excuse for maintaining the status quo in the face of energetic people who want to do good things, just not quite the same good things that have traditionally been done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 19:18:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And let's stop attacking the straw man that people who are interested in limiting the scope of skepticism are even suggesting that people who want to broaden the scope are saying that we should stop debunking bigfoot. |
Hey, you're the one who said, "...there would be a serious downside to leaving those shows and the claims they make alone." You meant something other than "not debunking Bigfoot." That's a mistake on my part, not a strawman.| My point was that by using bigfoot as the description of what sci skeptics do is a strawman because it chooses one of the most trivial things skeptics are involved in to make its point. Or didn't my list make that clear. |
No, that was clear. I was responding to what you said after that.| Also, yeah. There's no reason to debunk creationism if we aren't going to use that to fight to keep it out of science classrooms. Political advocacy in matters of science has always been part of the mission. I challenge you to find someone who says it's not. |
So you agree that the Skeptic Movement (your capitalization) is a political community using scientific skepticism as one of the bases for its advocacy (there are others, like the U.S. Constitution, and the concept of justice), and not "about" scientific skepticism. So why should I automatically think "scientific skepticism" when I hear "skeptic movement?" The movement isn't scientific skepticism embodied.
In fact, most of Loxton's article is bits of the history of skeptical investigation, and not a history of the movement. The latter may not have existed without individuals doing the former (just like the modern Democratic Party wouldn't exist without the writing of the Declaration of Independence), but they're not the same thing.
More directly, the movement formed around why people perform skeptical investigations - the values that people felt strongly enough about to go out and defend as an organized front using the best tools available and applicable. The movement is primarily about consumer protection against fraud, and so examining obvious frauds skeptically is directly related to the core movement, even if some of those frauds cannot be scientifically investigated.
The "mantra" of the consumer protection wing of the scientific skeptical movement is pretty much, "there's no evidence that this is real." I think that "there can be no evidence that this is real" overlaps so much that it shouldn't require it's own distinct movement. Both conclusions depend directly upon the philosophy and limits of empiricism. If not immediate siblings, they are cousins. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 19:23:09 [Permalink]
|
The only traditional part of fighting against anti-vaxers and climate change denial is that in both cases it's fighting pseudo-science. The subjects themselves are new. And that's the sort of thing that will always be popping up. Skeptics have had their hands full for a long time with shit like that. So if the choice is to not fight the traditional fight against pseudo-science, I guess that's up to them. But it's kind of a pretty big part of what skeptics do. At least, what the old guard did.
I choose to place my meager energies there, in any way I can. Unfortunately, the best I can do is promote the cause. But that's always been good enough for me. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 20:15:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But it's kind of a pretty big part of what skeptics do. |
Pretty big part, but not the only thing skeptics do. And nobody is suggesting that it be made a minority player.
The movement has evolved since I got involved, in response to the changing public atmosphere around it. UFO shows aren't big TV any more, but hauntings are. The former is a "rock solid" science-based subject with investigators drawing on astronomy, physics and even meteorology, the latter not so much. Sylvia Browne and Jon Edward weren't even engaged in pseudo-science, nor were they dressing up their fraud with "spirit raps," floating trumpets or trick shoes to be debunked by way of mundane duplication and explanation.
Younger, up-and-coming skeptics are cutting their teeth on this stuff, not on Von Daniken and In Search Of...
And the anti-vaxxers and climate-change deniers don't have TV shows. Sure, they get time on FOX News, but so do the mediums and pet psychics.
(Hell, 15 years ago, the Science Channel did nothing but promote real science.)
Yes, going after the cold-readers has also always been a part of the Skeptic Mission, but my point is that it doesn't require scientific skepticism to do so, but instead a working knowledge of the "art" coupled with a solid foundation in inherent human biases. Laughing about how they'll never actually try for Randi's million bucks isn't scientifically skeptical, either. So these mediums can be debunked without anything approaching a scientific investigation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 20:54:05 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
So these mediums can be debunked without anything approaching a scientific investigation. |
Actually, counting hits and misses and looking at the results is a scientific investigation. Even if almost anyone can do it. Even the basic understanding of human behaviour is scientific. You can't debunk a psychic on a hunch. There are things that must be looked for. Predicted, if you will, based on prior knowledge of how psychics do their thing. And that's scientific.
The science doesn't have to be complicated or difficult to do. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 21:57:57 [Permalink]
|
What's scientific about Randi's plant finding an earpiece on a "psychic"?
Seemed like a pretty big stretch to argue it's scientific because someone hypothesized he had an earpiece, I mean that seems a pretty obvious thing to check knowing that the information was provided beforehand, and that was Loxton's big example of hypothesis testing.
Edit: I suppose differentiating the information given to different sources to see what was echoed back was scientific in terms of figuring out which one it was (there's nothing wrong with making multiple simultaneous hypotheses). And there was a control, whatever the truth is about the people.
But that didn't end up being a useful distinction (as far as I can tell from Loxton's paper at least) with respect to the main result of this episode, finding how the guy was getting the information. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 02/11/2013 22:16:36 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 22:15:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
What's scientific about Randi's plant finding an earpiece on a "psychic"?
Seemed like a pretty big stretch to argue it's scientific because someone hypothesized he had an earpiece, I mean that seems pretty obvious knowing that the information was provided beforehand, and that was Loxton's big example of hypothesis testing.
|
Hypothesis, experiment, result which lead to further experimentation. Exactly how difficult or complicated must it be to be scientific? It's like you guys think there should be people in white coats with lots of test tubes and Petri dishes around for it to qualify as scientific. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 23:04:56 [Permalink]
|
This criteria makes quite a lot of things scientific. Here's some science I did today:
I felt warm and hypothesized the temperature was high, so I experimented by checking the thermostat, which spurred my next hypothesis: turning on the AC will make it cool. I'm still awaiting the results of that experiment. ;)
I'm not sure there isn't some difference between science and confirming a hypothesis. For one, scientific experiments are typically repeatable, and I think usually have some goal of producing some understanding of a phenomenon extendable beyond the single experiment. In this case, all we learned is that this particular guy has an earpiece right now. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2013 : 23:18:43 [Permalink]
|
Mach:
In this case, all we learned is that this particular guy has an earpiece right now. |
Which lead to further experimentation. The point is the hypothesis was testable, and it was tested. They didn't know that Popoff had an earpiece. Lots of reasonable hypotheses have crashed and burned. Banachek had to look. Observation leading to further experimentation.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why is There a Skeptical Movement?
