Well, there’s the term that James Randi (IIRC) came up with: Bright.

Nope… and I knew it wasn’t Randi, but I had to look it up: The Brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view. It was co-founded by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003

Wiki’d

Personally, when I read about it (Free Inquiry?) I thought it was a ‘less than bright’ idea
J/P=?

Pity there isn’t another name we can use.

Well, there’s the term that James Randi (IIRC) came up with: Bright. I’m a bright. He’s a bright. She’s a bright. Wouldn’t you like to be a bright, too?

That’s why when you meet people from a different background it’s important that you look for the good in that person/group. There will always be bad to find as well.

Remember: “No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.” –Jascha Heifetz

I think bad perception of skeptics comes from skeptics who constantly focus on what they don’t like in others or what they see wrong with others. This is the wrong way to engage in dialogs and debates with others since it causes people to become defensive which shuts down the communication.

Likewise, people who judge all skeptics based on the negative experience with only a few are just as much in error.

I like this quote from Pascal:
“When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.”

The problem with skepticism (as a word) is that it places you on to the same playing field as the nutters. While this is not attractive to me, I see the value in the attempt, especially where dangerous kooks like anti-vaxers are concerned. But for moon-hoaxers, is there really any value in swaying them? I mean, they’re not hurting anyone, right? Maybe disrespecting, but not hurting.

It seems more constructive (and less confrontational) to strive toward more and better understanding of the earth & the universe than to get in a scrum with some close-minded individuals who cannot see further than the tips of their noses, and simply let the chips fall where they may. But then I don’t live in Texas, so I’m a little less passionate about the cause.

Still hiring for the lunar spa?

As for Skepticism, my father was born in St. Louis, thus was ‘from Missouri’, AKA the “show me” state. Learned quite a bit of skepticism from him, and had it reinforced from a lot of reading, etc. with Carl Sagan being one of the writers, along with Joseph Campbell on the history/religion side.

Plus, one of the first things I discovered when I started reading and that there was this wonderful place called “the Library” was Science Fiction… where all kinds of outre ideas were explored, and another way of looking at current events by projecting the ideas and debates into another ‘world’.

J/P=?

And people shouldn’t forget his first skeptics site about “Dr. Kaz”:
http://www.stopkaz.com/home/index.htm

Angry – only when UFO and religion nuts get my dander up, and when creationists/biblical literalists don’t know their biblical history, and when Todd picks on me. check.

Angry – only when UFO and religion nuts get my dander up. check.

Don’t forget the creationists/biblical literalists that don’t know their biblical history.

Happy – check
Sad – well, sometimes. check.
Angry – only when UFO and religion nuts get my dander up. check.
Interesting – errr…
Awkward – check.
Calm – ha!
Confident – check. check.
Silly – check. check. check.
Serious – check.
Smart – hm. check?
Smarter – only than the average UFO nutter. check.

I guess that’s why I like Dr. BA’s blog. (‘cept when he chews me out for being a twit.)

Not only that, but so much of what “skeptics” do is directly related to fighting with the nuts that I feel this too pigeon holes “skepticism” as just another (extreme) point of view in the eyes of the many.

It shouldn’t be about facing down the nuts. It should simply be about keeping people informed and always speaking the truth. We don’t need a name for that!

True, some folks will never be swayed, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.