The Character of Scepticism

A couple of years ago, I became aware of something called scepticism and something else called critical thinking. It was eye opening and, in some ways, liberating. I was a firm believer in the Abrahamic God, I was still in awe of my Catholic background and a happy little camper when it came to all things paranormal. The process of critical thinking and open minded scepticism enabled me to change the way I thought about things. It enabled me to question the idea of the Father God and see the Church and its trappings and ideologies in a different light. Great stuff.

So, I started to 'read' the sceptics. I read sceptical blogs and forums and I looked to those places to continue my personal journey into working out 'why' and 'how' and 'is that reasonable'? And I started to read phrases like 'the great unwashed' and 'deluded' and sceptic groups calling themselves 'Brights' - presumably as against the rest of us 'Dims' - and I was not impressed. Not at all. I saw people demolished, sneered at and ridiculed on various sceptic based forums. I saw them called trolls because they refused to accept a sceptic viewpoint. I saw pointing fingers and joyous cries of 'prove it!' And I was not impressed. I saw people who styled themselves as intellectuals gleefully baiting others who had not enjoyed the educational privileges that the core group had done. And I was not impressed.

So, whilst I have reached the conclusions I have after much thought and, in my view, critical thinking, I've decided that I'm not a 'modern day sceptic'. And I hope I never do take on that label because, as I see it now, it's not a nice place to be.

That's some broad brush-stroking there, Les.

It might help if you gave some specifics to your argument. Tarring the whole sceptical community with such accusations is disingenuous and dishonest.

Let's also balance this by saying that you see equally pitiful comments from believer sites. Ad hom is not the sole domain of sceptics.

Some sceptics on some sceptical forums certainly do behave badly (although I have never once seen terms such as "brights" or "great unwashed" anywhere - you make it out like these are common calling cries - they are not!). Some believers on some belief sites are bigoted, ignorant and offensive. So what?

If you want to have an honest debate on scepticism let's start with an honest positioning statement shall we?

A very thoughtful post there, Les. I have thoughts along the same way, though I didn't have a catholic upbringing and was not practising religion of any sort. I did take literally the Bible though. The sceptics have helped me a lot in that respect but I have come full circle back to believing, though not in the way of the Bible. Having said that I do think there are truths hidden in the book. And I am also prepared to accept I could be wrong on that.

What you have said I could not have said better myself.

"Believers are ignorant"

Anything wrong with that statement?

Maybe you're missing the word 'some'

Sceptics can be ignorant. Anything wrong with that?

Oh, so I have to use the word "some" but Les doesn't.

Explain that to me!

Nope, I even alluded to it myself in my first post in this thread.

Les, all people to some degree are ignorant. You seemed to spend a long time getting to the point that you are offended by people that belittle others. At the end of the day that is all you seem to say.

All followers of philosophical groups will have their vocal element. Those people don't change my mind by their actions; only by their argument.

Reading between the lines, I can't help feel that people like you and sherry will believe some of the things you do out of stubbornness, rather than rational consideration. If so, then that is an example of pride before enlightenment. Nothing wrong with that, but you will stand-out in the company of sceptics.

Agreed, RB.

People can be sceptical and rude, it does not change the scepticism of a position. Similarly, nice people can think themselves sceptical but then demonstrate no such thing in their actions.

Being nice does not equal being sceptical.
Being sceptical does not equal being nice.

"You are rude therefore I don't accept you sceptical viewpoint" is ad hominem and a logical fallacy.

The OP is a logical fallacy.

QUOTE (sherry @ Apr 12 2012, 12:33 PM)
Maybe you're missing the word 'some'

Fells
Oh, so I have to use the word "some" but Les doesn't.


I see nowhere that Les has said 'ALL' .......

Rusty
Reading between the lines, I can't help feel that people like you and sherry will believe some of the things you do out of stubbornness, rather than rational consideration. If so, then that is an example of pride before enlightenment. Nothing wrong with that, but you will stand-out in the company of sceptics.


But we stand out anyway because of our beliefs. And I think you possibly place us as being stubborn in those beliefs because you have none at all yourself and can't understand why people do.

But you can see where I have used "all" when I said:

????

That's your clever way with words waiting to catch us out

What clever use of words?

It's you demonstrating bias because you see a difference between the position Les has taken and the example I posted. There is no difference and yet you can't admit it. That position you have taken right there, Sherry, could be used as justification by some sceptics for using derogatory terms!

You are a debater, Fells, and have it off to a fine art. I'm not into debate and don't look deeply into words like you might.

And why is it always others being baised? I don't see it that way. I stand up for what I believe in. If that's too difficult for you to accept because you have no belief I can't help that. And it does not give you or anybody else cause to be derogatory.

There was nothing deep in saying "believers are ignorant" - you very quickly got the point that I should have said "some" - and rightly so (it was the point). The problem is, and this is where your bias comes in, you didn't spot that Les never eluded to "some" sceptics.

Can you see why I used the "believers are ignorant" example? No clever use of words, just an honest demonstration of bias at work.

The bias in this case has nothing to do with belief - it's all to do with clouded judgement.

I feel like you're using me as a guinea pig with the use of words. I'm not here to catch people out or prove points, Fells. I'm not hanging on to every single word and digesting it. I'm innocent as far as I am concerned in what you're getting at

I'm not using clever words or trickery, Sherry. You called me out for not using "some" in my example - and rightly so - you haven't called Les out for not using "some". That's bias.

I'm not saying it to have a go at you, Sherry, we're all guilty of bias at some stage or other, but in the context of this discussion, spotting the errors of an opposing side while not spotting the errors of side you agree with can be seen as justification for some of the derision Les talks about.

Well, the thread was put up with the intention of provoking debate and not as a way to hit out at anyone in particular. In my opening post, I specifically mention sceptic blogs and forums, not all sceptics. Whilst reluctant to employ a hackneyed phrase, I have to say that one of my best friends is a sceptic. We have good, open discussions on various aspects of the paranormal and religion and although we don't change opinion, I think it's fair to say that we both enjoy the discussions very amicably.

Part of the problem is that it's so easy to find quotes that makes the 'popular' sceptic seem rather unpleasant and there's no doubt that this antagonism doesn't help when it comes to trying to persuade someone to change their mindset. If I'm dealing with a child who doesn't understand a concept I'm trying to teach them, I wouldn't think of calling them slow witted and I've seen directed at John Edward's fans.

Yes, Fells, they were very broad brush strokes, and yes, maybe somewhat disingenuous, but not dishonest - you can find this stuff if you look for it.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Brights. I think the term was coined by Richard Dawkins, but James Randi certainly signed up to the concept. I don't mind the general concept, I do, however, think it was rather an unfortunate title to choose.
http://www.the-brights.net/
Here's what James Randi has to say about it.

Not one part of this paragraph suggests you are referring to "some" sceptics, Les. That is the dishonesty I was referring to. Using broad brushstrokes does tar the whole population - whether deliberate or otherwise.

Better to target your attack on the section of the group specifically. If you had done that I, for one, would have probably agreed with a lot of what you had to say.

Scepticism is merely a position based on evidence of a claim - it is not a political party or dogma. Just as there are bad priests, bad believers, bad leaders - there are bad sceptics. Does that mean you dismiss everything they say because they happen to be a bad advocate? Of course not. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is no way to come to a position of opinion.

As for use of "the brights' I challenge you to find common usage of that term (or any synonym of it) on JREF - common usage, mind, not one or two cherry-picked links.

But I haven't. In fact, the opening to the thread was anything but a dismissal of scepticism.

I can't really specify individual forums or people, for obvious reasons.