The least rethinking of things? That is the exact opposite of scientific-mindednes, which involves: forming hypotheses rather than making premature conclusions
Absolutely, but I was talking about skeptics who are not nice to believers and call everyone a quack or a woowoo for disagreeing with them. It is not scientific mindedness, just plain rudeness. But it is based on Ockham's Razor: usually assuming someone is a 'quack' or a 'woowoo' is the hypothesis that requires the least amount of 'entities'.
"things already known with great certainty" - whatever that means
It basically means 'acting on the basis of acquired data' and evidence. So you don't have to pretend you are disagreeing with me about anything.
Some of the things that are already known with great certainty are things like Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Evolution, etc. A claim that requires less rethinking of these is more likely to be true. If a skeptic calls a homeopath a quack, that he is stating a hypothesis that requires less rethinking of the laws of chemistry than someone who claims homeopaths are effective medical practitioners.
While calling someone a quack is not a very nice thing to do (assuming there is no further evidence showing the efficacy of homeopathy) it is probably closer to the truth than calling him a doctor.
Where is it stated that "skeptics are not meant to be nice"?
This is me stating a belief (which I may or may not have myself). I don't think it is completely unreasonable: if skeptics were meant to be nice, many would have been much nicer. But many of them are not. This does not disprove in anyway that they would be more effective if they were.
If we assume that everyone has a role to play in the world (which is purely a belief, but I used such language because I figured that Aster would have an easier time grasping it when it is stated in such a way, about which I was right) then clearly skeptics have the role to criticise people strongly, trying to make them rethink the assumptions upon which their beliefs are based. Lord Kenneth once wrote that he didn't care about how he made believers feel as long as he got his message across. (His thoughts are
here, although I don't think that was the post I refer to.)
I basically agree with that, but also believe that a 'spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down'. I am not merely being nice because I am a nice person, but because I think education is more important than being nice. I just think that being nice is more effective.
That's one thing I dislike about Randi's style; it is at times over-the-top caustic for no real purpose.
I agree with that, although I do think his harshness is often very funny. I think his problem is that he is too much an entertainer and too little a scientist. A comedian can fiercely insult people, but because he is seen in the context of comedy, he is humorous.
Other skeptics know how to be nicer about their arguments
True. As I have said 'some are a bit more eloquent in their criticism than others, though'.
Those people who he turned off are (perhaps) less likely to write e-mails telling of how, if only his style had been nicer, they would have become skeptics; but how, instead, Randi's style had set them on the course away from skepticism and toward utter credulity in the supernatural.
This is why I have advised Aster a while ago not to email with Randi, as he did in the beginning. I even have found myself that in email Randi appears very rude and not in a fun way either. I told Aster not to let his view of Randi be influenced by Randi's lack of email manners.
While I do not claim to have evidence that he does critical thinking more harm then good, I think he could be doing it more good than he is doing now. Of course he is only human.
