• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Have we lost the war over the meaning of "skeptic"?

Have we lost the war on the word "skeptic"?

  • Yes, we've lost, people think it means a global warming denier or science denier.

    Votes: 7 77.8%

  • No, we've won, people know what we mean.

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Total voters
    9

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Orphia Nay
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
52,449
Location
Australia
My friend Robyn is quite logical about things, and yesterday she was telling me about a person who was a conspiracy theorist and alt-med nut. She thought she'd like to pair this woo woman up with our friend Geoff. Geoff is a fairly critical thinker.

I told Robyn I didn't think pairing Geoff up with the conspiracy theorist was a good idea as Geoff is a skeptic, and Robyn said, "same diff isn't it?"

I've noticed most people now associate "skeptic" with "global warming skeptic". That term has travelled round the world several times while the ISF meaning of "skeptic" hasn't finished putting its socks on.

Is it time to admit defeat and call ourselves "debunkers" instead? International Debunkers Forum?
 
I think it has always had (at least) two distinct meanings: skeptic as we understand it here, tends to mean a skeptic of claims for supernatural phenomenon such as UFOs, ghosts, ESP and cryptozoology.

BUT... it also means accepting conventional scientific consensus, and that's the bit where people tend to call themselves skeptics on issues like vaccines, climate change, conventional medicine etc...

Natural languages always end up with unusual issues like this where two people can call themselves skeptics and have completely different conceptions of what that means and are horrified to meet each other at dinner parties, like the two survivors who had nothing in common when they met each other in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

(*) There is also radical skepticism as understood in philosophy where there is pretty much a refusal to believe in anything at all.
 
angrysoba said:
BUT... it also means accepting conventional scientific consensus, and that's the bit where people tend to call themselves skeptics on issues like vaccines, climate change, conventional medicine etc...
Click to expand...
I think you mean, "NOT accepting scientific consensus"...
 
Skeptics demand evidence for claims (especially extraordinary claims). Cynics pretend to be using skepticism but really there is no evidence that they will accept.
 
angrysoba said:
LOL! This is where it gets confusing. On climate change we accept the scientific consensus unless there is good evidence not to. The other skeptics don't.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I know that. It was a parsing problem, all good.

Don't people find it annoying having to reel off a whole spiel to explain what you mean by "skeptic" to differentiate from a denier?
 
I'm not prepared to agree with either choice offered by the poll. The "war" is ongoing and has neither been won nor lost.

Also, it isn't really a war. If someone misunderstands the word, consider it an opportunity to explain what the word means to you.
 
Puppycow said:
I'm not prepared to agree with either choice offered by the poll. The "war" is ongoing and has neither been won nor lost.

Also, it isn't really a war. If someone misunderstands the word, consider it an opportunity to explain what the word means to you.
Click to expand...

What if I don't want to be That Person during a conversation changing the subject and redefining definitions and telling people they're wrong?

That's a noble aspiration, but I still think we've lost too many battles.
 
Whatevervthe word means is rather secondary to the general consensos of how this board, and the long standing members define it.

There are a few theist types in the mix that otherwise tow a tight line, a few that slide on the medical stuff some but still keep the rest straight. It's a good mix to keep us all more or less honest.
 
Skepticism has been mostly replaced by sociopolitical woo on this board.

And it's probably been a decade or more since this forum has offered a significant debunking of anything.
 
8enotto said:
Whatevervthe word means is rather secondary to the general consensos of how this board, and the long standing members define it.

There are a few theist types in the mix that otherwise tow a tight line, a few that slide on the medical stuff some but still keep the rest straight. It's a good mix to keep us all more or less honest.
Click to expand...
I just wonder if the membership of the board has died out in tandem with the rise of the meaning of the word being known widespread as global warming denier.
 
I kind of wonder how much the widespread population really worries about global warming, and what they can do to help.
My impression is most don't give a flying flock about it.
They don't want to inconvenience a lifestyle.

Why would they care about the word 'skeptic'?
 
I would like to say no but yes its largely useless label. To normies its got two meanings, I think most folks think it means cynic but some folks think it means doubting the consensus on some issue or all issues and deniers think they are skeptics.

After reading Julia Galef's book, I try to only wear identities lightly, so I'm not to upset about the loss of skeptic as a label.


ETA: Still better than "Bright"tm

Sidetrack, I went to wiki to remind myself of the brights and found a radio host that called himself a bright at some point. Lionel, once a host for air air american but eventually became a Qanon believer and commentator for Russia Today. That's ideological journey.

ETAM: I love reading that wiki article every so often. So many otherwise bright people that thought that cringy as hell notion would ever catch on. I'm embarrassed for them even 20 years later.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
My friend Robyn is quite logical about things, and yesterday she was telling me about a person who was a conspiracy theorist and alt-med nut. She thought she'd like to pair this woo woman up with our friend Geoff. Geoff is a fairly critical thinker.

I told Robyn I didn't think pairing Geoff up with the conspiracy theorist was a good idea as Geoff is a skeptic, and Robyn said, "same diff isn't it?"

I've noticed most people now associate "skeptic" with "global warming skeptic". That term has travelled round the world several times while the ISF meaning of "skeptic" hasn't finished putting its socks on.

Is it time to admit defeat and call ourselves "debunkers" instead? International Debunkers Forum?
Click to expand...

We can call ourselves skeptics, when in context we know we'll be understood. Else, more generally, "Rationalist" should do fine. No need to be wedded to the term "Skeptic" till death do us part, is there? I personally won't much mind letting go of Skeptic and staying with Rationalist ---- not "debunker", that's a subset. Although naturally, if made king of the world, if given a choice, if asked, I'd stay with Skeptic.

I agree, talking about "skepticism" sometimes/often does need an explanatory footnote. No need to go to "war" over the term, is where I'm at.


eta: As for the poll? A third option? Not Planet X, but an in-between thing?
 
Last edited:
There's already a forum called "Rationalia".

Would it be plagiarising them to call ourselves International Rationalists Forum?

Mind you, "Debunkers" is still more widely used.

I just think the word "skeptics" in our name is putting people off.
 
Orphia Nay said:
There's already a forum called "Rationalia".

Would it be plagiarising them to call ourselves International Rationalists Forum?

Mind you, "Debunkers" is still more widely used.

I just think the word "skeptics" in our name is putting people off.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean, specifically in terms of this forum name? ...Fair point, then, about the potential confusion. ...For no reason other than sentiment, and not liking change: I'd say, keep the name, but make very clear on the home page, conspicuously at the top, what we mean by the term.

Never heard of Rationalia. I'll check them out.
 
Just did. Very briefly.

Interesting. Certainly, focuses on rationalism. But seems just a wee bit woo-sympathetic, as in leaning towards the abstractions of Vedantic/Upanishadic ideas, aka early deism, early 'unitarianism' maybe. Or at least, that's what a very quick, super quick browse indicates.

Very young team at the helm. As young as teenagers, in fact, with the "founder" a twenty-year-old, apparently. Which, while it makes the thing possibly just a bit high on passion and low on accuracy (maybe, maybe not); but, by and large, a good thing, surely. Also, the names seem Asian, Indian maybe. Again, a good thing, to have a broader base of skepticism/rationalism: but, on the other hand, that might explain their thing about Advaitic-ish ideas (or what seemed to me such, basis a super quick browse).

Anyway, cool reference. Bookmarked, I'll check them out some more later when I've time.
 
Orphia Nay said:
There's already a forum called "Rationalia".

Would it be plagiarising them to call ourselves International Rationalists Forum?

Mind you, "Debunkers" is still more widely used.

I just think the word "skeptics" in our name is putting people off.
Click to expand...
But skepticism is about more than just debunking. Sure, debunking woo is fun and it can be important, but skepticism is a philosophy, a state of mind, a practice, and an approach to knowledge. Skepticism is epistemology and metacognition, knowing how to find out what is true and what should be debunked.

Yes, the word does a lot of heavy lifting. I think it's still useful, even if it is not a conversation for every occasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom