The Character of Scepticism

So what, specifically, is the point you're making, Les. Let's keep the broad brushstrokes out of it.

Perhaps you can start by defining what you mean by 'modern day sceptic'.

Narrower brushstrokes then. Let's look at ...

Let's look at Stuttaford on Crossing Over star John Edward: "He's a fast-talking psychic with slow-witted fans."
There are certain high profile sceptical forums where ridicule of believers is the norm - that's what they do.

Let's, maybe, put it this way. I have no problems discussing the paranormal with you or Duck, but the very idea of posting of one of those high profile sceptic forums fills me with horror. No way could I do that. That's not a good way to open up dialogue is it? That's my point, I think.

And 'Stuttaford' is wrong when he says it. He's wrong because it's ad hominem. It doesn't make him a bad sceptic per se, it makes him a bad debater. If his position of scepticism is only based on the wit of others then that would make him a bad sceptic.

You'll have to give examples, Les, PM me if you want to keep them anonymous.

I have seen people with deeply held beliefs be treated with respect on JREF - of course, there will always be input from people that is unwelcome. That happens on all forums - even on here. You'll never know unless you post your position on one of the forums you fear ridicule from.

What do you mean by 'modern day sceptic'?

Going back to an earlier topic.

Can we all come to an agreement that, unless someone states ALL, that when someone refers to a thing, it is assumed that person doesn't mean every single last one?

e.g. If I say 'sceptics are childish', I don't actually mean every one of them is childish.

sherry, fells, and Les often state, 'not all are like that.

The trouble is, we go through endless arguments saying, 'not all are like that' which in my view gets tiresome.



What do you all say?

Sorry, RB, I disagree. We need to clearly state our position - especially in the 'serious debate' section. There should be no room for assumption and misinterpretation - that can be just as irritating to a debate.

Maybe I'm referring to 'band wagon' sceptics, Fells. I haven't mentioned any particular forums but I think you see them on most of these sites. They enjoy the ridicule, and people like Crispian Jago, with his 'how to point and laugh' blogs, seem to be popping up all over the place. Even Carl Sagan, who is a sceptic I have a lot of time for warns ...

That school of thought which, in my view, includes dressing up as zombies to 'gatecrash' a psychic meeting, seems to be growing and it does the cause of open minded scepticism no favours at all.

I agree, gatecrashing places does seem to be pointless, Les - but let's put these events into context. How many gatecrashing zombies have you heard about? How many of these 'zombies' were sceptics in the regular debating tour?

How many times have you heard Richard Wiseman, Paul Zenon, Michael Shermer, Chris French etc speak with derisive terms about believers? These are the real face of scepticism in the public sphere. Organisations such as TAM and Intelligence Squared or any of the public educational institutions that host debates show the public face of scepticism.

How much does the opinion of an anonymous blogger or forum poster really count? Who gets requested to guest on This Morning or other TV shows to be the face of scepticism? Anonymous bloggers? No.

To agree with your OP would be to disparage the works of a number of respected people who are know to argue the argument - not the arguer.

The zombies were members of the JREF - and the head zombie was D.J. Grothe, who is also the president of the JREF and a Huffington Post blogger. That's pretty high profile.

This wasn't just one anonymous blogger but part of the 'Sceptics in the Pub' group. Again, pretty high profile and easy to find.
http://www.skeptic.org.uk/events/skeptics-in-the-pub

The two incidents I found - without too much effort - are part of the face of public scepticism. Of course Chris French and co are much more circumspect and I'm glad of it, but they're only a part of a growing sceptical movement which appears to be becoming increasingly intolerant of paranormal claims. They seem incapable of discussing such claims without descending into 'finger pointing' sarcasm which immediately deprives them of credibility in my view. The sarcasm overshadows any relevant points they may be making.
I agree with you that there's a core of sceptics who are genuinely working to promote critical thinking, but there's a growing tendency to resort to ridicule and baiting which is counterproductive, IMHO.

There is certainly no more derision in the forums that I attend - and have attended over the last 10 years that wasn't there originally.

You brought up one event from a handful of members in a very large network of groups (SitP). Given the enormous number of events that this group stages you will have to do more than show one misguided event as being evidence of a pernicious turn in scepticism.

You have not demonstrated a 'growing tendency to resort to ridicule and baiting'.

My view is that no-one ever means absolutely. Indeed, absolutes, by and large, don't exist. It seems therefore illogical to interpret any unconditional statement to mean 100%.

Agreed, but there is also a significant difference between "all", "most", "some" and "few" - quite important when the premise of the thread is about the purported increase in a position - as it is in this case. Significance needs to be based on established baselines.

Which taken to its natural conclusion means, many debates we have here are under false pretences as we often don't have good data to back up many of our opinions.

On topic:

Les's argument is simply that rude sceptics let their selves down and don't help to further the cause of sceptical thinking. I agree with this, if that is what she means.

Where I wouldn't readily agree with her, is if many, if any, of the sceptic's targets deserve any reverence.

And I don't disagree with any of that.

From the OP, though, there is a suggestion that, more than not furthering the cause of scepticism, this type of activity actually sets back the cause of scepticism. I disagree with this premise. It suggests a level of impact which has not been established.

It also states a type of scepticism - 'modern day sceptics' - for which we've had no definition.

The devil, as they say, is in the detail.

I'm not sure how I could give you established baselines, Fells. I'm commenting on what I've noticed and I haven't any specifics to give you. I can only state that I've noticed the ridiculing more and more recently. I've been reading the sceptical blogs and forums since I was on 'another' forum which most of us belonged to, I think. I've liked some of what I've read but other posts have made me cringe. Not the believers' posts, but some of the responses to those. I just don't like it and I don't believe it works as a tool to encourage discourse. I know Richard Dawkins has advocated it, particularly when it comes to religion. I believe he advocated it at the Reason Rally. I could probably find a quote, but I expect you can do that for yourself. Will you defend that, I wonder?

"So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."

http://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/...son-rally-2012/

To answer your question, Les, I don't agree with Dawkins.

People like Dawkins have at least opened the door to debate about the great unspeakable. Sure he won't persuade people who are entrenched in their personal belief, but he inspires debate between others. The proof we have of that is in this very thread.

Please tell me Les: am I right in thinking that people like Dawkins make you more resolute in your beliefs?

Lunatics is my view of them

Forums have always been full of insults and derision from both sides - you will always come across posts that make you cringe. What do you expect? I cringe at truly ignorant posts - it's the nature of forums. As for it not encouraging discourse - clearly that is wrong as forums are full of people from both sides engaged.

Is this representative of the 'modern day sceptic'? No, I would say not. But then, I don't go to forums to get my understanding of sceptical discourse - I'd rather watch debates from the places and people I listed earlier. Maybe you would get a more balanced view of 'modern day scepticism' if you frequented those places too.

I will defend anyone's right to free speech. I don't, personally, advocate his position in this matter (ridiculing the person with a belief) but I have no problem ridiculing the belief itself (religion holds some of the most ridiculous nonsense of any belief and is fair game for derision given the heinous acts it has been guilty of over the centuries).

Also fair game for derision are the practitioners of dangerous quackery - frauds and charlatans who should be thrown in prison for the dangerous and pernicious trades they peddle. Would I personally use the same tactics with those considering such dangerous nonsense? No, I wouldn't. Ben Goldacre is a good example of a 'modern day sceptic' who challenges and derides quackery but never attacks those who choose to use the quackery. His column, books and blogs have far more public exposure than any sceptical forum - he and his like are the face of 'modern day scepticism' - not the anonymous forum. But then, forums are rarely places for education - few people go to be educated. They go for interaction, discussion and, yes, baiting. Would a believer in creationism change their position with pleasant discourse any more than they would with baiting derision? No, of course not. Do they go back, even after personal attacks? Yep - they do.

I don't think you're helping Les's argument!

I understand your point, but I don't agree that derision is, under any circumstances, a good way to go. Also, I agree with you about forums and I don't just read them to the exclusion of any other way of gathering information. I'm assuming you aren't intimating that? I'm quite capable of finding debates and discussions of interest, and I do, thankyouverymuch.

With regards to the forum issue, there are people who get ridiculed and derided and, yes, some of them do go back, but I contend that there are a lot of 'middle groundies' who wouldn't go there to start with. The ones who go back for more, as far as I can see, aren't doing so for any reason of debate; they're doing it for other reasons. They certainly don't seem to further their own causes, or change their views. Also, the forum thing is something that people are more likely to engage in. It's a modern form of communication and these forums are read by many, many people.

Then, there's also the view that it's okay to ridicule the view, not the person? It rarely works. People take attacks on their ideas as personal attacks and there's no way around it. You'll say they shouldn't, but saying that doesn't make it so. People do - then they stop listening.