Except, I’m claiming that skepticism itself is not a well defined technique, unlike the techniques of science. The only goalpost shifting is being done by “skepticism”, certainly not science. Unless you want to claim that the tentative nature of science isn’t appropriate? Hey, that IS science!

Put it to you this way (a) do you want to teach children creationism in evolution class? of course not, creationism isn’t a science (b) do you want to teach “skepticism” method in science classes now? I don’t think so.

I was thinking that as well. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one. Skepticism as a naturalistic worldview as opposed to philosophical skepticism are two completely different animals. Just as the concept of philosophy is different from philosophy when used in the sense of “This is my philosophy.”

There’s philosophical skepticism, scientific skepticism, and “popular” skepticism. You yourself just alluded to scientific skepticism. The philosophical and “popular” definitions of the term then mean something different, and more like each other than to scientific skepticism.

This is the same semantic tactic that allows creationists to dispel any evidence for speciation, by shifting the goalposts of “proof” between philosophical and lay definitions.

Aw! I was hoping for a political show on Fox. That would have been funniest show ever.

The channel was once a fascinating collection of shows on science-related subjects that elevated the overall quality of television.

Everyone always says this. Is no one aware that Discovery split many years ago into multiple channels? All the good stuff is on The Science Channel, and the new series “Life” on the main channel is many shades of awesome.

In philosophy, there are well established principles of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. This “skepticism” is just new age mumbo jumbo to attract the masses, and AGAIN short circuit their thinking process. Go back to school. (by the way, I’ve taught physics, astronomy, and earth science at colleges for 30 years).

For example, one well established concept of science is the abductivism technique which involves inference to the best explanation and typical consists of evaluating the likelihood of hypotheses to explain the data set (called the explanandum). BUT the data set itself has to be put to scrutiny to make sure the experimental design is precise and sort out correct evidence from phony (or hoax) evidence: OH, you think the establishment scientists , etc., don’t ever make stuff up??? What about Piltdown Man?

Our friend , Mike Shermer, who I respect, he is a brilliant and interesting man, but he says something I totally disagree with . He claims skepticism isn’t a point of view, it’s a technique. But what IS the technique, can it compete with the established IBE technique long established as a model of science and applicable from evolution to atomic structure.

Some other suggestions of skeptics to feature:
James Randi (duh)
Richard Dawkins
Adam Savage (for the star value, naturally)
Ms. Information
A Skepchick or two

I am a SKEPTIC!

and I am also Hawt!! Deal with it.

Every skeptic is important! Of course, some are more important to the movement as a whole and communicating the ideas behind skepticism, but every skeptic out there is helping to ‘keep the bastards honest’…

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/25/from-carl-sagan-to-sarah-palin-discovery-gives-palin-her-own-reality-show/

“The better to THINK at you, my dear.”

Come on, that pic HAS to be modified. If his head was actually that big, he’d have to have two brains in there. I have enough trouble feeding just one.

Cool!

GAry 7