Note: this entry is based on a post I made on James Randi’s bulletin board. The idea has been expanded here.
Have you heard of the “Bright” movement? It’s an idea dreamed up by some skeptics. The basic thought is that most people don’t really understand what it means to be a skeptic. They think it means someone who denies everything, a nay-sayer, a cynic. It brings to mind a curmudgeon, someone who is, well, a jerk.
But in reality, it means someone who demands evidence for a claim. That’s all. That’s not so terrible, is it? But the word is so twisted by others, the real connotation lost, that a lot of skeptics don’t like to use the word anymore. So some folks tried to think up a new word. Lots were tried, but none stuck.
Then came the term “Brights”. They felt that this connoted a cheery mien, and took it to mean someone who has a naturalistic view of the world, unfettered by superstition.
I find this ironic, since the people who dreamed it up are pretty smart, and the people who signed onto it are pretty smart as well. Yet, somehow, they missed the idea that this word is really pretty awful.
I laughed the first time I heard it. I knew right away it was a terrible choice. For one thing, the word already has a meaning in the context of thought. It means someone who is smart, someone who is clever. If you’re not bright, then, well… you’re dim. Dumb. Doofus.
So it’s a pretty bad idea to give yourself a name that implies pretty strongly that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. It’s divisive. Skepticism thrives on debate, and it doesn’t help to say that your opponent is stupid.
It also comes across as arrogant. Sure, you’re not supposed to say “I’m bright,” but instead say “I’m a Bright,” but that very subtle difference is understandably lost on most people. Skeptics face an uphill battle against a lot of folks who already find them arrogant (and many skeptics are notably anti-religious, making debate a whole lot harder too). This name ain’t helping.
Skeptics want people to think critically. An “us versus them” term is not inclusive. It may be great for rallying the troops, but it’s not so hot for convincing others. Why would any fence-sitter want to be in a group that sounds elitist?
But there’s a final irony that I find humorous. The term was dreamed up as an alternative to the word “skeptic”, which has bad connotations to people outside of the skeptics’ circles. So someone came up with an even worse term, which is more divisive. The irony is that “Bright” was the best thing they could come up with. The others were a lot worse (read Michael Shermer’s book “Science Friction” for the list, and more background on this topic).
The solution is rather simple, and right in front of us. What we need to do is take back the word “skeptic”. Gays have done it for the word, well, “gay”, as well as “queer”. Certainly they are a group that’s suffered at least as much as skeptics.
When I give talks, I use the word, and define it clearly for everyone: I am a skeptic, which means I take nothing on faith. You want me to take your idea seriously? Back it up with facts. That’s the difference between science and fantasy.
I’m a skeptic. What are you?
August 17th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Yes, yes I am.
Actually, I am a Gay skeptic.
No Joke. My homosexuality first made me question religion (for obvious reasons), which turned me onto the scientific and political debate on gay rights. This opened the door for my doubt of creationism, and, well, you know the rest.
A gay atheist… I better avoid the deep south
August 18th, 2005 at 12:41 am
I’m a theistic skeptic. I don’t think being a skeptic means never taking anything on faith. I do believe that being a skeptic means asking for ecidence for extraordinary claims. Faith in my world isn;t a bad thing. Faith is action in the absence of certainty. In most things, we already act in the absence of certainty. We don;t know in advance that the brakes will stop the car the next time we go to use them. But they have worked before and we think it;s unlikely that they’ve broken since we last used them, so we decide to drive the car and trust that the brakes will work when we need them. We put faith in our technology all the time. We do so because it’s been proved through experience to be generally reliable. But it dosn’t make it any less an act of faith to step on the pedal expecting the car to stop.
I also have theological beliefs which are faith statements — they lack certainty. Nevertheless, I act as if they were true. I choose to do so because I choose to live in a universe where I believe these things are true. I don’t insist you believe them, but I do ask that you respect that I have chosen to act this way. I declare that I won’t force you to listen to them or force you to believe them.
August 18th, 2005 at 1:17 am
The life of a sceptic can be a good one, as they do not get taken in by every charlaton under the sun. However there is one issue where some claiming to be sceptics are not so even handed.
Some sceptics dismiss creationism as a posibility, because it requires the concept of a supreme being, which they deny, because they do not have what they deems as sufficient proof. Why then do they go on to implicitly follow evolution which has a number of holes in the theory (Spontaneous generation being the biggie) This comes across as applying a double standard
August 18th, 2005 at 1:55 am
Sticks, hie thee to the Talk Origins pages.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:23 am
Sticks, here’s the difference:
While there may be holes in evolutionary theory, we don’t automatically go around plugging those holes with ‘God goes here’. Hopefully, the holes will get smaller as time goes on as scientific theories get more robust and closer to accurately describing reality. That, after all, is what science is about. Scientists and skeptics aren’t afraid to have incomplete information – it’s what makes us curious – we’re just very resistant to those who want to plug all unknowns with untestable dogmas.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:27 am
I’m a skeptic. And a feminist.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:47 am
Bright is not a good replacement for sceptic, I mean you can be sceptical about things and yet still be increadibly dumb!
Dan.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:49 am
Thinking about it maybe moon hax believers fall into this category, they are sceptical about NASA visiting the moon, but too dumb to look at the evidence and find out that they did.
Dan.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:38 am
I first happened upon the label “bright” in one of James Randi’s commentaries and had much the same reaction. So what should skeptics/brights/critical thinkers call themselves?
I for one don’t think that skeptic ought to be abandoned. At present, it seems to be the term around which most people who make judgments based on evidence identify themselves. It’s not the word that’s the cause of the negative connotation, it’s the perception that many hold of it.
We could learn a lesson from the story of the terminology applied to homosexuals. Most of the words currently synonymous with homosexuality that are commonly used as pejoratives have such an association because of the public perception of the phenomena, not the words themselves. For example, take the word ‘gay.’ Gay used to be a perfectly appropriate adjective for describing something happy or pleasant. The only reason that ‘gay’ has a negative connotation now is that it has been merged with the hostile view that many take towards homosexuals.
If people are hostile towards skeptics, odds are it’s not the name’s fault. A person that associates a negative perception with ’skeptic’ probably does not approve of what it stands for, namely, people like us who make judgments based on scientific evidence. In much the same way that people find themselves hostile to homosexuals, a person may be hostile to skeptics because of a conflict with their own values, theological or otherwise.
We should be proud to be skeptics, not because we like the title but because we support what it stands for. We have a defined set of principles, and that is the important part, not the label. We need to band together in support of the principles of scientific thinking, not whatever name we decide to call ourselves.
And Rudih, I disagree that the decisions (like the car example) we make in our everyday lives represent acting on faith. You are correct in saying that I don’t have absolute certainty that the brakes in my car will work. However, absence of certainty is something that no behavior will ever achieve. Absolute proof is a concept that exists only in mathematics. While I may not be functioning in the presence of certainty, I am functioning in the presence of evidence. Every one of the thousands of times I’ve pressed on my brake pedal to successfully slow my car represents an experiment by which my assertion that my brakes work gathers validity.
Few things frighten me more than the idea of a person who thinks they are absolutely certain of anything.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:40 am
I’m a skeptic (and am admittedly jaded enough to go a bit overboard into cynicism).
However, I will [i]never[/i] be a “bright”. What an awful term.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:49 am
Sorry, that should be “absolute certainty” instead of “absence of certainty” in the last paragraph.
My bad.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:21 am
I’d like to think of myself as a skeptic, I question [i]everything[/i] drives my dad nuts….
I feel odd using that term though, at my age(15)…
I also border abit on cynicism unfortunetly…
“Bright” is a horrible term!
It meaning has nothing to do with critical thinking!
August 18th, 2005 at 6:49 am
I’m a skeptical atheist, borderline paranoia.
Dang it I LIKE to call myself a Skeptic. I question everything, I trust no one, I demand a critical mass of proof before I will believe anything.
What’s wrong demanding proof, or taking the advice from the scientific community that has spent countless years studying the issues, over taking the advice of some preist, rabbi, imam, or any other cult leader?
Besides, the term “bright” is just wrong, on so many levels. I’ve got nothing against gay people, but I’m sorry, but to me at least it DOES sound like the title of a BAD float in a the gay pride parade going down Castro Street in San Francisco.
August 18th, 2005 at 7:11 am
Rob0112358, we, as skeptics, shouldn’t be demanding or even asking for “proof” in order to believe a particular claim. We should demand “evidence” and in abundance. This may sound like quibbling but in science we usually don’t “prove” anything but we support it with evidence. If we demand proof of those with fanciful beliefs they will demand proof of us, and we simply can’t deliver. We can only say the evidence supports our theory.
August 18th, 2005 at 7:29 am
I’m certainly more of a cynic than a skeptic. It’s much more fun.
I have faith in God, and also accept evolution.
I’m skeptical of anyone that can’t separate science and religion/faith/philosophy. One discovers how, the other discovers why.
August 18th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Well, Phil, it appears that you’ve re-opened “Pandoras Box”, again.
“Bright” really offended me–arrogance as such.
I am quite comfortable as an Atheist, a Progressive Scientific Freethinker, a Naturist, a Rationalist, Futurist, with some cynicism and skepticism inlcuded. I am Me.
From John R. Searle’s book “Mind–An Introduction”:
“Once you revise the traditional categories to fit the facts, there is no problem recognizing that the mental qua mental is physical qua physical.”
“Consciousness is just a (biological) brain process. It is a qualitative, subjective, first-person process going on in the nervous system.”
” Consciousness is a biological feature of the brain–a natural process.”
“Science names a set of methods for finding out about anything at all that admits of systematic investigation.” “So if we are interested in reality and truth…there are just the facts we know.”
Be Rational–Not Religious. Isn’t it time to put away those quaint, superstituous religious beliefs and magical thinking?
August 18th, 2005 at 9:25 am
AIUI, “bright” is not a synonym for “skeptic”. Rather, it’s an umbrella term for anyone who doesn’t believe in gods, pixies, spirits, etc. “Skeptic” is sort-of related, but really means “someone who demands evidence.” I can see someone being both a theist and a skeptic, but a theistic bright is a contradiction.
While I see nothing wrong with reclaiming the word “skeptic”, I think there should also be an effort to reclaim “atheist”.
(And if anyone’s looking for a replacement for “skeptic”, how about “Missourian”, as in “show me”?)
August 18th, 2005 at 9:46 am
“Brights’ is awful, I agree. I’m surprised they didn’t go all the way and just call themselves the Illuminati.
August 18th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Yeah, I was waiting for an Illuminati reference since I read the initial post. Maybe it’s because I’m reading “Angels and Demons” right now though…
August 18th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Stop arguing about names! Names are useless! If every last atheist, agnostic, humanist, and Buddhist united under the term “bright” or “skeptic”, they’d still be a minority. People don’t listen to you because you have the same label as other people, they listen to you if you have something smart to say, or you’re saying it loud.
August 18th, 2005 at 10:33 am
I’m a skeptic and a bright.
but regardless of the sucky word I agree with the movement.
I don’t call myself a bright but I agree wholeheartedly with their definition of one. I don’t like the name either. However i’m curious with the analogy used in your entry Phil… On the one hand you say that one reason its a bad word is because of its existing meaning (agreed!) but then you go on to say that Gays have ‘taken back’ that word + ‘queer’. As far as I can see its the opposite, they have ‘taken over’ these words that already had existing meanings too.
Maybe this can happen for the Brights or maybe not
August 18th, 2005 at 10:53 am
I suggest using the title “Evident”, as in “I am an Evident.” It has a much more neutral connotation.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Fantastic last paragraph, sums up being a sceptic very well.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:56 am
I question pretty much everything I hear and see. And it’s REALLY annoying some people around me!
I usually don’t say “I’m a skeptic!”. I prefer taking the long way around, saying I don’t believe something until I have very satisfying proofs. That I ask questions and seeks logical answers. THEN I mention that it means I’m a skeptic. In my opinion, it’s by defining the word first before mentioning it that you’ll spread the meaning it deserves.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Eww, “brights”.
To me, it evokes the new-agey “I have an aura!” sort of belief.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
“Bright” bites. I thought Randi was a pretty good communicator…this lame idea came from Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert. Get a load of the manifesto and obligatory list of “enthusiastic brights”. Eww indeed.
http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/
I’m a skeptic. That’s a good thingâ„¢.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
> I am a skeptic, which means I take nothing on faith. You want me to take
> your idea seriously? Back it up with facts.
You should add a qualifier that you take nothing on faith in the context of science or more broadly “explanations of real world phenomenon” or sth. similar. I am sure that if your parents/wife/children say they love you, you don’t expect them to back this up with facts.
Of course this would be trivial enough that it doesn’t need mentioning, but I wanted to underline “being skeptical” in itself is not something that can be used as a label/category for people. Many people that are strong on faith in the religious sense may well be very skeptical (as in: want factual proofs before they believe a statement) in other contexts.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
“Bright” bites. I thought Randi was a pretty good communicator…this lame idea came from Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert. Get a load of the website manifesto and obligatory list of “enthusiastic brights”. Eww indeed.
http://www.the-brights.net
I’m a skeptic.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
“Bright” bites. I thought Randi was a pretty good communicator…this lame idea came from Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert. Get a load of the website manifesto and obligatory list of “enthusiastic brights”. Eww indeed.
dubyadubyadubya the-brights dot net (links are very hard to post here)
I’m a skeptic.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
I am a devout “Flying Spagetti monsterist”
August 18th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
What about “empiricist”?
No, wait! That sounds too much like “imperialist”.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Actually, you can make up your own nasty sounding words and use them against pseudoscientists.
(e.g. “Your extensive use of mathturbation leads me to believe your ‘theories’ are self-indulgent.”)
August 18th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
“So what should skeptics/brights/critical thinkers call themselves?”
How about, “Evaluatists”? Anybody who criticaly evaluates a claim or idea before accepting it as a probability. I know I could go with “Evaluators”, but this already is too broad a term for the purpose. Also, while “Skeptic” might sound a little negative to an uninformed person, I don’t think that any one has any trouble evaluating something. Just a suggestion.
August 18th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I call myself a skeptical secular humanist. Notice the absence of capitalization. I couldn’t call myself a Bright, it just sounds too self-congratulatory.
I used to call myself an atheist as well, until I was touched by His Noodly Appendage.
-Andy B
August 18th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
I am a skeptic. I am skeptical of theories based on bad evidence or no evidence; I don’t buy the Moon Hoax anymore than the idea that Jesus Christ did not exist (see http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2005/05/jesus-denial-and-moon-hoax.html).
Arensb, I agree that there’s a difference between skeptics on the one hand and brights/atheists on the other. At one time I did not believe in God and called myself and atheist; today I believe in God and don’t call myself an atheist, obviously, but occasionally I still call myself a skeptic, in the sense that I always ask for evidence.
Scott de B., brights have not called themselves the Illuminati, but skeptics often embrace the tradition known as the “Enlightenment”, a word that conveys its own arrogance.
The Enlightenment was a good thing; but it was a specific cultural tradition with its own biases. The same might be said of Skepticism, which I spell with a capital “S” when I refer to hyper-skepticism. Carl Sagan wrote in “Cosmos” that in a ship of the imagination we would pursue “worlds of dreams and worlds of facts.” He also wrote this:
“It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas…. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you…. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones” – Carl Sagan, 1987.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Sencer Said:
>You should add a qualifier that you take nothing on faith in the context of science or more broadly “explanations of real world phenomenon� or sth. similar. I am sure that if your parents/wife/children say they love you, you don’t expect them to back this up with facts.
Contrast the case of parents/wife/children declaring their love for you with complete strangers doing the same. It becomes obvious that accepting such a statement from the first group is not taken on faith, but backed up with evidence (things they’ve done for you in the past etc.).
I think the distinction lies in whether or not it is possible to back up a statement with facts, as opposed to whether or not it is necessary.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Oh lord there were enough schisims over christianity Let’s not have one over skeptisim.
That being said, I AM A SKEPTIC AND PROUD OF IT, DARNIT!!
August 18th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Thanks for that. I always assumed that “Bright” was some new-age religion, like Raellianism (or however it’s spelled). I hadn’t realized it was some form of skepticism, although it did sound very elitist.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
1. The “Bright” appellation is not so much a replacement for the “S” word (skeptic) as it is a replacement for the “A” word (atheist). It is true many atheists are skeptics, and skepticism is part of their atheism, but the two are not interchangeable even if there is much overlap in the two camps. Of course, Shermer points out that many atheists self-identify as religious skeptics, and would use skeptic in that way themselves.
2. I’m not fond of “Bright”. I had the same reaction regarding the common use of “bright” to mean “intelligent”. It doesn’t take a genius to see that common use slang is going to dominate people’s reaction, whatever the definition order in dictionaries. Or maybe it takes a non-genius.
3. Despite the adamant denials by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, “bright” does have a built in antonym. Now it may be fair to state that by using “Bright” in this new way, the antonym is no longer valid, but you can’t just dismiss that the word has other, more common meanings, and that those meanings have antonyms. And common usage trumps dictionary formality in the case of public perceptions.
4. I read an article in Skeptical Inquirer where the author asked why we need to describe ourselves as “skeptics”. Sure, within the community we know what we mean, but to the outside world it does rather convey an attitude of naysaying or cynicism. I even saw that played out on some stupid ABC “news” program (I think it was PrimeTime), where John Quiones was dealing with psychics and described the critics as “cynics”. Also, skeptic is often the description used for any position of disbelief – such as “moon landing” skeptics. This is the commonest use of the word – someone who doesn’t believe, rather than someone who applies rational thought to question. The point of the article is, why do we go into the discussion labeling ourselves, “I’m a skeptic, and what about X?” All that does is put us arguing terminology and dismissal as naysayers and crankypants. Why not just raise the questions?
I think there’s some rationale for providing a label for us to rally behind, recognizing our common approach and intent. But maybe it doesn’t need to be the first thing said about us when we respond.
5. Another term that’s often used disparagingly for skeptics is “debunkers”, suggesting that we’re out to prove the claim false whatever it takes, rather than rationally evaluating and asking for evidence. The typical rejoinder is, “You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk,” but glib responses don’t really address the underlying implication of that label, that the disproof is more important than the truth.
6. I read some of the linked articles. Interestingly, I kinda like the term “Scepnostic”, from Shermer’s list. It has a parallel form to words already in use. The Gnostics believed god’s nature was known, and Agnostics believe that god and his nature are unknowable, or that the question of god’s existence is insoluble. A Scepnostic would then be someone skeptical (sceptical for the British spelling) of god’s existence. Scepnostic has a nice ring to it, a smooth flow. It’s not nearly as jarring as some of the other proposed options (Agnahumans? Nagnoskepts?). It isn’t unwieldy as some of the more direct options (Critical Thinkers, Philosophical Naturalists, Secular Humanists). And being a neologism, it doesn’t have built-in antonyms from other uses of the word. Scepnostic.
7. I think Dawkin’s proposed conversation in his article, The Future Looks Bright, is just silly and unnatural. Somehow by avoiding the magic word “atheist” the hypothetical conversationalist is open to and excited by the non-supernatural worldview. Right.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
How about “Rationalist”? I like being a skeptic and within its circle I believe the term is perfectly adequate. If however we want to use a term which conveys a more positive spin among layman, perhaps “rationalist” is the better way to go.
The term puts emphasis on the qualities of reason and rational thinking, obviously. It has much less of the cynical sting which too often hampers the term skepticism. I often referred to myself as a rationalist in my teen years before I discovered the more organised usage of what we call skepticism.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Of course, on second-thought, I realise that “rationalist” has the obvious quality of alluding to the opposite mindset – the “irrational-ists”.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
ruidh Said:
> I don’t think being a skeptic means never taking anything on faith. I do believe that being a skeptic means asking for evidence for extraordinary claims. Faith in my world isn;t a bad thing. Faith is action in the absence of certainty. In most things, we already act in the absence of certainty. We don;t know in advance that the brakes will stop the car the next time we go to use them. But they have worked before and we think it;s unlikely that they’ve broken since we last used them, so we decide to drive the car and trust that the brakes will work when we need them. We put faith in our technology all the time. We do so because it’s been proved through experience to be generally reliable. But it dosn’t make it any less an act of faith to step on the pedal expecting the car to stop.
I don’t think faith is the right word in those circumstances. Faith is belief without evidence. Some would say that faith is belief despite the evidence, but I won’t go that far. What you describe regarding car brakes is trust, based upon the evidence of prior uses of cars and car brakes; based upon the knowledge of car design that went into building the car and that the designers had an underlying understanding of the principles in action and the methods by which the brakes work. It is true we don’t have absolute certainty, that we don’t have foreknowledge of the events and all conditions. But we can be reasonably certain things will work. This is trust. This is not belief without evidence. You describe faith as action in the absence of certainty, but I don’t think that’s an accurate representation of what faith is about. That’s more akin to trust. In a world without certain knowledge (and how can we ever have certain knowledge of anything), trust is a condition of relying on something you expect to happen. Faith is a condition of relying on something you wish to happen. One has evidential support, the other is desire.
> I also have theological beliefs which are faith statements — they lack certainty. Nevertheless, I act as if they were true. I choose to do so because I choose to live in a universe where I believe these things are true. I don’t insist you believe them, but I do ask that you respect that I have chosen to act this way. I declare that I won’t force you to listen to them or force you to believe them.
I’m not going to demand you give up your belief, but I will ask you to look at your own description: “I choose to [act as if they are true] because I choose to live in a universe where I believe these things are true.” You yourself have stated there is no evidentiary basis for your beliefs, that it is wishful thinking on your part – it is they way you desire things to be. I point out that the universe has no compunction to behave the way we desire. You stated that being a skeptic means asking for evidence for extraordinary claims. I have to wonder if there is any more extraordinary claim than the existence of god (certainly by the typical anthropological form). Hey, believe what you want, but if you’re going to think critically I’m just suggesting you apply that critical thought even-handedly.
Sticks Said:
> Some sceptics dismiss creationism as a posibility, because it requires the concept of a supreme being, which they deny, because they do not have what they deems as sufficient proof. Why then do they go on to implicitly follow evolution which has a number of holes in the theory (Spontaneous generation being the biggie) This comes across as applying a double standard
In addition to the addressing of the issue of abiogenesis (i.e. spontaneous generation of life from nonlife) provided by French Leave, some other comments come to mind. #1: “implicitly follow evolution” – implicitly? I take it you mean the second definition, “without doubting or questioning”. Evolutionary theory was not blindly accepted by science, it was highly and extensively questioned. That science has come to accept evolution as a theory explaining the diversity of life is because the theory has great explanatory power, that it ties in to a lot of observed conditions about life, and that it has been tested and shaped to address the flaws that are found. That questioning is on-going in science.
As for individual people accepting evolution, if we don’t actively seek to second-guess evolution, it is based upon numerous factors. Most commonly is that evolution provides a consistent explanation that spreads throughout all biology. Furthermore, when science is learned in school, most of us rely on our science education to be reasonably related to what scientists know. We don’t regularly set out to disprove Kepler’s laws of motion, or the Periodic Table. We also don’t typically set out to disprove that Julius Caesar was assassinated, or that Abraham Lincoln was a tall man, or that the world is a spheroid. We generally accept these things, rightly or wrongly, because they are what is taught and they are presented by folks who presumably know and we don’t really have reason to question them. However, sometimes some of us find reasons to question them, and when we do we can go look at the evidence and the arguments ourselves.
Sencer Said:
>You should add a qualifier that you take nothing on faith in the context of science or more broadly “explanations of real world phenomenon� or sth. similar. I am sure that if your parents/wife/children say they love you, you don’t expect them to back this up with facts.
Actually, they do back it up with facts. If someone says they love you but then trash-talk you behind your back, ignore you when you’re around, and dismiss anything you say as irrelevant or without value, it doesn’t matter what they say, the evidence does not support the claim of love. Of course, I may be willing to accept a statement of love without demanding proof, but that does not mean proof is not provided through daily interaction.
> Of course this would be trivial enough that it doesn’t need mentioning, but I wanted to underline “being skeptical� in itself is not something that can be used as a label/category for people. Many people that are strong on faith in the religious sense may well be very skeptical (as in: want factual proofs before they believe a statement) in other contexts.
That is a fair comment – one might be skeptical in some situations and with some topics and not with others. However, the label is being used in this situation to describe a preferred state and ideal approach to life that may not be 100% consistently applied but is a strongly desired goal. I’m a skeptic not just because I think critically about topics and ask for evidence, but because I think being skeptical is a desired way of life and how I try to live my life and approach the world. I may not always be successful, but it is the approach I encourage and desire.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
What is wrong with “scientist?” The first ruleof science is observation. This means that in some way you need to be able to observe something, measure it, though not neccessarily being able to see it. A skeptic is just someone needing th observe something in every way, leading to another rule of science, interpretation. That interpretation is based on the observation. The interpretation leads to prediction, which is based on the knowledge of how something works. Not how it appears to work, but how it works.
That said, it doesn’t matter what you call a skeptic, skeptics will be criticized. Being skeptical invites criticism in place of reason.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
I thought I would solve the problem by looking for a new word in Roget’s College Thesaurus. Some of the words listed for skeptic are: doubter, infidel and unbeliever. No wonder we have a problem.
August 18th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Back when the Brights were asking for input on this, I said most of the same things on their forum. Coming up with a term for skeptical people may have seemed like a good thing, since skeptical seemed to denote curmudgeon-y cynics. Brights, however, is not the answer.
I don’t agree that the term skeptic needs replacing, embellishing, or augmenting. The general public already has a generally low opinion of scientists and scientific types [hey, don't scientists dismiss the validity of Horoscopes (used to be didn't they make the bomb) - no way I'll side with them!], we don’t need to make things worse with a term guaranteed to rub the masses the wrong way.
We don’t need a new term – period.
Certainly we don’t need a term that says “I have a 165 IQ and you don’t.”
jbs
August 19th, 2005 at 3:08 am
Hi!
Although I absolutely agree that the term “bright” is no improvement, I must confess that I have always been perplexed when scientists call themselves “skeptics”. This may mean that I am one of the people who don’t quite get the meaning of the term (my excuse is that English isn’t my native language), but I think that there is at least a bit more to it. At least in philosophy, a skeptic is someone who adheres to skepticism, which is generally taken to be a position that claims that we cannot know anything, because the evidence speaking in favor of some fact is never strong enough to rule out some alternative (e.g., I could be dreaming all this, or be a brain in a vat …).
Might this not be a reason why scientists – or any undogmatic thinkers – who call themselves “skeptics” are occasionally misunderstood?
P.S. As to HvP’s and Tim G’s proposals (”rationalist”, “empiricist”):
I’m afraid these terms have been in use for some centuries already, too.
A rationalist claims that the source of all of our knowledge is pure thinking, while an empiricist says that our knowledge solely springs from experience – empirical evidence.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:40 am
“Bright” is way way into the New Age realm.
Cripes, no one is planning on nailing a Bright Manifesto to James Randi’s front door, are they?
August 19th, 2005 at 10:46 am
You are correct that there is a philosophical school of skeptics that hold the premise that nothing can ever be known for certain and that question everything, even existence. This is not what is meant by the modern group of people who apply the label to themselves. Rather, it is an indication of the approach to addressing topics – questioning and seeking for evidence rather than taking claims at face value. Perhaps there are some people that get confused by that, but I think most people (at least in America, where the topic is the most heated at the moment) aren’t particularly aware of that school of philosophy.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Jens: There are two strains of skepticism. One is as you say, the philosophical school of Sextus Empiricus and so on. The second is more moderate, and that is what the “organized skepticism” movements are about. There’s an interesting comparison of the two by the philosopher Mario Bunge in an article called “Absolute Skepticism Equals Dogmatism”.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
An atheist cannot prove his belief that there is no supreme being; a religious person cannot prove his belief either. A person is free to believe what they want as long as they don’t harm anyone and should not be judged, no matter how strange it seems.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
I can just imagine it now…
“I’m a Bright,”
“Oh, yeah, a (b)right ****er, I can see that!”
The English language is full of words (oh, er, well, yeah) that are falling out of use because people are often not aware that there is a word for what they mean. For example, I bet not all of you knew there was actually a word for “oh, I didn’t mean to cross that out, it should be read as originally written, without the crossing through” (the word is “stet”).
Anyway, when one is a sceptic (or skeptic on the western side of the pond), why shouldn’t one use that word? As about a dozen people have said before me, we should encourage others to see scepticism as a positive thing.
BTW, Phil, sorry to be pedantic, but a cynic is not a nay-sayer. A cynic is one who believes all others are motivated solely toward selfish and / or greedy ends, i.e. someone who does not believe that genuine altruism exists.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
First choice: skeptic. Second choice: a hybrid term to confound the skeptics and appeal to the clueless: pharisaical skeptic.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:28 am
In this politically correct climate of ours, those of us learned enough to understand the fundamental interest and enthusiasm in science are always forced to treat the irrationally religious zealots with compassion, understanding and tolerance. In a perfectly harmonious world, it would be great to hold strong to these principles and attempt to use knowledge and compassion to enlighten those brainwashed enough to lack rational thought and an understanding of the scientific process. However, considering the unified stance, and perpetual disinformation spread by established religion (Among other groups), there should be some voices vocal enough to directly threaten this repugnant industry of lies. People like Sir Richard Dawkins, often described as Rottweilers — antagonizing and intimidating those with different views, cannot be easily dismissed by detractors. Intimidators are needed in this multifaceted battle against stupidity.
BA, I realize you’re one of those who would rather use reasoning and logic, limiting direct antagonism and intimidation, to teach those on the opposing end to think critically. Yet, there should still be a vocal minority directly attacking the Bill Frists, Pat Robertson, and the anti-scientists all working at clouding the world of reasoning and critical thinking. This is a direct attack against free thought, and should not go unchallenged. Some may approach this with calm diffidence, others with a pedantic detachment, but as for myself, I’ll constantly be on the offensive. Why must we wait, till they strike first. They claim Intelligent Design, then we go on the defensive and attempt to teach people real science. They spout off nonsense about Moon Hoaxes, then we go on the defensive and attempt to persuade people to think critically. For once, we should take the initiative and offnesive, blitzing them silent. Should they feel offended, defeated, inferior or un-intelligent to what we have to say, Tough. Sometimes, a little nudging, is not enough. We can’t just sit and allow these anti-scientists to spout nonsense.
Further, Why should we have to rationalize our skepticism, or cynicism for that matter, towards those ignorant to rational thought? You cannot always catch more flies with honey, sometimes, it takes intimidation to kill the rotten infestation from the source (thus preventing the flies in the first place).
August 20th, 2005 at 5:22 am
HawaiiArmenian, intimidation will have an equal and opposite reaction. You can’t use it without it rebounding on yourself. What you’re proposing will lead to war — to a crusade, actually.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:41 am
I’m happy just being a Skeptic, even if people use the word as a type of Slur. Sometimes I describe myself as being “scientifically minded” in casual conversation when I don’t feel like getting into a big philosophical or ideological debate.
Maybe one day I’ll feel more comfortable about slinging around the “A” word.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:45 am
HawaiiArmenian, it is important that we not equate “irrationally religious zealots” with “all religious believers”. Extremist language like that does not help spread education and rational thought, it builds enmity and drives away support from moderate religious people who would otherwise accept and support our position. There’s a role for confrontation and certainly a need to confront detrimental policies and proposed actions. At the same time, obstinate antagonism does not promote rationalism and reasoning. Those of us seeking tolerance for our non-mainstream position on religious topics (i.e. atheists) would do well to practice tolerance in our own actions.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:18 pm
I hate the presumption in calling oneself a “Bright.” But also, to say, “I’m a Bright” is just awful grammar. It’s not just arrogant but it’s also distracting. Sounds like you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop; maybe as in: “I’m a Bright” (individual).
Bright is just too much of an adjective. It’s like saying, “I’m a Cool” or “I’m a Handsome.”
yuck.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:01 am
SO WHAT if people are skeptics, it doesnt bloody matter, anyway, being a skeptic is bettter than being a cynic, which is not so good!
i mean..hello…we live in the real world (exception to ppl who live in their own little world) and we NEED TO BE skeptic, our minds cannot be ruined by stupid claims…….and ANYWAY…asking QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONING EVERYTHING is what people should DO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shada…
p.s. IM A BRIGHT – whoeva came up with that stupid name ‘BRIGHT’ is pathetic, anyway, i prefer the term SKEpTIC…SONDS MORE ELEGANT!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am
I’ve seen ‘Bright (n)’ in contexts of ‘try to create a friendly word for atheist’ (a word frequently even more loaded than sceptic).
My immediate reaction was similar to yours: though I think there’s ample evidence out there that the delusionally religious should not be allowed to run the planet (or countries thereof), and plenty of them seem to be dimmer-than-average, patting ourselves on the back for our comparative intelligence (or seeming to do so) is seductive-but-unhelpful.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Although I _am_ also beginning to wonder if the word ’sceptic’ ought to come with an intelligence test.
Looking for intelligent & entertaining blogs just now (having read pretty much everything on Randi.org, CSI(COP) and Ben G’s Bad Science), I Googled for ’sceptical blog’ and found that was too broad; Googled for ’sceptical rationalist blog’ and before coming up with the sort of things I was looking for (like this blog) found a lot of Utter Nonsense.
One of the starring examples was ‘psychic sceptic’ blog, which I clicked on to find out how on earth those polar opposites could be yoked together. This bloke apparently thinks that his approach counts as sceptical/rationalistic if he:
a) goes to some place said to be haunted
b) states the possible woo-woo explanation and the possible sensible explanation as if they’re equally likely
c) shrugs his shoulders and states that he realises there’s a perfectly sensible explanation but he prefers the other one…
I wish I could say it’s an Onion or a Landseer Baptist, but I fear it’s straight: I had a rather New Age friend a few years ago who used to drag me to Crop Circle meetings. The loony fringe is full of people whose claim to level-headedness/scepticism rests on profession (physics teacher, pilot, accountant) or emotional temper (Not A Drama Queen) as opposed to considering evidence.