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.

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.

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!!!

Bright is just too much of an adjective. It’s like saying, “I’m a Cool” or “I’m a Handsome.”

yuck.

Maybe one day I’ll feel more comfortable about slinging around the “A” word.

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).

“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.

Cripes, no one is planning on nailing a Bright Manifesto to James Randi’s front door, are they?

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.

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

That said, it doesn’t matter what you call a skeptic, skeptics will be criticized. Being skeptical invites criticism in place of reason.

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.

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.

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.

That being said, I AM A SKEPTIC AND PROUD OF IT, DARNIT!!

>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.