• 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.

On What Basis Does "Skeptics" Appear in the Forum Name?

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,354
I realise there's no trademarking involved, so the forum can call itself whatever it likes, but it seems to me that if you self-label as skeptics - especially internationally so - you should accept some personal responsibility for acting as you describe yourself.

In what way does ISF aid or support skepticism, or even act skeptically?

Yes, there are skeptical sections to the forum, but since they're the least popular non-member-only section, it's not an obvious connection.

On other boards with skeptic or skepticism in their name, at least lip-service is paid to skepticism, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence in action here.

Given that this is named International Skeptics Forum, is there a responsibility that the forum is seen to act skeptically itself?

Is it harming or aiding skepticism in the process by not being visibly skeptical in style?

(Keep in mind I do not self-identify as a skeptic.)
 
I came here because I like to believe I am sceptical to find similar kind. Cant answer your questions beyond this.
 
On the basis that "International forum for people who are allowed to be doubtful about things that are the majority opinion of all the relevant experts but have to uncritically swallow any crazy idea that some random nutter dreams up as long as it isn't mainstream" would have been too long for a URL?

Dave
 
so, 52/145 people liked the name, or at least didn't dislike it enough to vote for an alternative.

Mystery solved.

I still like "Cat Herding" though....
 
The Atheist said:
On other boards with skeptic or skepticism in their name, at least lip-service is paid to skepticism, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence in action here.

Given that this is named International Skeptics Forum, is there a responsibility that the forum is seen to act skeptically itself?
Click to expand...
How should the forum act then, compared to how it is acting now? You obviously have at least some tangible suggestions in mind.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
It's mainly to irritate you, OP. How we doin'?
Click to expand...

Badly. Why on earth would it irritate me?

If it irritated me, I wouldn't bother posting.

madurobob said:
On what basis? IIRC, there was a vote and this was the one selected out of many. I don't believe all contained the word "skeptic".
Click to expand...

The vote was the guide, but the owner decided on the name.

Dave Rogers said:
On the basis that "International forum for people who are allowed to be doubtful about things that are the majority opinion of all the relevant experts but have to uncritically swallow any crazy idea that some random nutter dreams up as long as it isn't mainstream" would have been too long for a URL?

Dave
Click to expand...

Very good.

That wouldn't fit descriptively, either, because the premise would still be false.

JJM 777 said:
How should the forum act then, compared to how it is acting now? You obviously have at least some tangible suggestions in mind.
Click to expand...

I did say I'm not a skeptic, so I'm not the best person to ask, but things like transparency & maybe preference given to skeptical subjects spring to mind.

On the flip side, politics shows no signs of skepticism whatsoever.
 
JJM 777 said:
How should the forum act then, compared to how it is acting now? You obviously have at least some tangible suggestions in mind.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...

Why should I care that a forum member believes that the forum is not conforming to some unevidenced ideal for behavior of skeptical forums?

Does failure to self-identify as a skeptic mean that the person isn't a skeptic?

Does the above stance invalidate the setting of that person as an observer or arbiter of forum style?

Asking how the forum should act assumes that the OP is in a position to provide an answer. I'm yet to see evidence that he/she has standing.

ETA - I've just seen OP's response that crossed my questions above and answered them in part, but I leave them there for posterity.

BTW - you expect a rational discussion of *politics*? Agree wholeheartedly that there's not much skepticism in those threads - and there never will be for as long as humans post in any forum where that's a topic...
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
Why should I care that a forum member believes that the forum is not conforming to some unevidenced ideal for behavior of skeptical forums?
Click to expand...

I don't see ideal or caring having anything to do with it - the concept is a bit wider than that. I'm just interested to see what it's supposed to mean. That applies equally to members and the owner. I don't know Icerat well enough to know if he even identifies as a skeptic, but I do know lots of the members do. Or used to when it was JREF. That may not be the case any longer, in which case it might be counter-productive.

I am a member at a literature forum. Almost all of the activity is about literature.

I am a member at a car forum. Almost all of the activity is about cars.

That trend continues across all forums I have looked into, except in the skeptical world. I think there is only one of the smaller ones that actually looks like a skeptics' forum from its content.

Kid Eager said:
Asking how the forum should act assumes that the OP is in a position to provide an answer.
Click to expand...

How odd.

I always ask questions when I don't have the answer. If I had the answer already, I wouldn't bother asking.

Kid Eager said:
BTW - you expect a rational discussion of *politics*? Agree wholeheartedly that there's not much skepticism in those threads - and there never will be for as long as humans post in any forum where that's a topic...
Click to expand...

Ok, then. Maybe the question is whether politics is compatible with skepticism, but that would no doubt require a thread elsewhere.
 
The Atheist said:
things like transparency & maybe preference given to skeptical subjects spring to mind.
Click to expand...
To clarify this, does the forum now have too much or too little transparency (in what: management / moderation / other)? And is preference now given too much or too little to skeptical subjects?

The Atheist said:
On the flip side, politics shows no signs of skepticism whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Every thread is as skeptical as its participants.
 
JJM 777 said:
To clarify this, does the forum now have too much or too little transparency (in what: management / moderation / other)? And is preference now given too much or too little to skeptical subjects?


Every thread is as skeptical as its participants.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Every community is collection of participants, participants are responsible for the state of community.

From my experience, what sets "skeptical" communities apart from chess or literature that there is good chance of "cranks" and "ideology" hanging around. The reasons are obvious I think.
 
The Atheist said:
The vote was the guide, but the owner decided on the name.
Click to expand...

Not as I understood it. That decision was delegated to the folks running the poll. Sure, he could have overridden that decision, but he didn't (and it would have been a huge mistake to do so). So, its inappropriate to suggest he had any meaningful input into why the word "skeptic" was included. He simply went with the name chosen by forumites vote. There were options without "skeptic" in them, and there were folks against any name with "skeptic" in it - you can read all about it in the poll threads.
 
The Atheist said:
I realise there's no trademarking involved, so the forum can call itself whatever it likes, but it seems to me that if you self-label as skeptics - especially internationally so - you should accept some personal responsibility for acting as you describe yourself.

In what way does ISF aid or support skepticism, or even act skeptically?

Yes, there are skeptical sections to the forum, but since they're the least popular non-member-only section, it's not an obvious connection.

On other boards with skeptic or skepticism in their name, at least lip-service is paid to skepticism, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence in action here.

Given that this is named International Skeptics Forum, is there a responsibility that the forum is seen to act skeptically itself?

Is it harming or aiding skepticism in the process by not being visibly skeptical in style?

(Keep in mind I do not self-identify as a skeptic.)
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Sadly, I failed to submit my favorite idea for a name Ineffectual Milquetoasts Forum.

What can I say? I like a little self-deprecation in a forum name.

On the plus side, the acronym would be ImilF. It works on so many levels. And I dare say would be getting a greater number of hits than we are now!
 
Cause some of us is!!!!! And we try to play with those who isn't. As nicely as we can live with!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom