Skepticism - how can we measure it?

Luciana

Skeptical Carioca
Luciana
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
10,984
Location
Rio de Janeiro - RJ
I'm thinking in terms of general population. First - who can be considered a skeptic? Second - is the number of skeptics increasing or decreasing in our societies?

Skeptics love data, and yet I can't find, on top of my head, I way to measure the success of skepticism.

There's reason to believe that atheism in on the rise in Brazil. But is it true or, maybe, more people are willing to declare themselves atheist than in the past? Still, it is easy to define yourself as an atheist. Does the same hold true for skeptics? I'm afraid the mainstream public even knows what it means.

Failing just asking the general population... what could be possible indicators that skepticism in on the rise or not? I'm afraid that focusing on particular woo-woo beliefs and following their "performance" in the general public; we all know that those beliefs might be temporarily fashionable, only to be substituted for something else in the future. The Bermuda Triangle is down, "natural" remedies is up.

The rise in the number of skeptic magazines sold could be an indicator, but would not be conclusive.

So, is there any way, scientifically speaking, to accurately measure the drop or rise of skepticism in the general population?
 
As you imply, opinion polls are not satisfactory, because the wording changes over time, people may respond differently to key words over time and there is the question of approriate "random" sampling techniques.
And the ambigous questions, like, "Do you believe in witches?" and "Do you believe in dega vu?' from the 1990 Roper Poll in the US.
Of course I do believe in both. I know some Wiccans and dega vu is a well known phenomenon.

Does tha make me a Woo-Woo?
I think not.
 
Jeff Corey said:
As you imply, opinion polls are not satisfactory, because the wording changes over time, people may respond differently to key words over time and there is the question of approriate "random" sampling techniques.
And the ambigous questions, like, "Do you believe in witches?" and "Do you believe in dega vu?' from the 1990 Roper Poll in the US.
Of course I do believe in both. I know some Wiccans and dega vu is a well known phenomenon.

Does tha make me a Woo-Woo?
I think not.
Click to expand...

The question "Do you believe in Deja Vu?" is rather loaded, because it can mean different things:

"Do you believe people ever have a feeling of Deja Vu?"
"Do you believe the feeling of Deja Vu has a supernatural origin?"

It's like asking if someone "believes" in UFO's. They're really asking if someone believes that UFO's are actually aliens from outer space, but to say "no" implies denying the whole phenomenon.


edited to say:
(ok, slap me with a wet noodle, this is just exactly what you're saying. Consider it an agreement.)
 
Luciana Nery said:

Skeptics love data, and yet I can't find, on top of my head, I way to measure the success of skepticism.
Click to expand...


I think that is a very interesting statistical question Luciana, and one that I think is pretty tough to explore.

By 'success' what do you mean exactly? The number of skeptics, or the number of skeptics who were something else before being skeptics?
 
There are also people who are selectively skeptical. They could, ofr example demand solid evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial UFOs, ghosts or the effectiveness of astrology but be profound believers in the effectiveness of homoeopathic remedies and the existence of Bigfoot (the primate not the monster truck).

In fact I would say true skeptics are very rare indeed. Many of those classing themselves as Skeptical just happen NOT to believe in the above list. If presented with evidence of the effectiveness of dowsing, for example, they would be as difficult to persuade as those dowsers being presented with evidence of their failure.

I'm not entirely sure I'm immune from this. During the Horizon programme on Homoeopathy in which Mr. Randi conducted a double-blind set of tests, the first half of the results indicated that there was an effect from the homoeopathic "remedy". I was at this stage going to dismiss the results as a fluke or otherwise chose to ignore them. Fortunately order was restored when the full set of results was available.

It's a very rare person who can honestly say "I have no feelings about xxxxxxxxx but there is no evidence to support it and then is quite happy to support xxxxxxxxxx once the evidence was in place". Too many of us (and I include myself in this) are too wedded to debunking woo-wooism to be entirely objective.

Of course the fact that we're always right doesn't help either :D
 
Luciana Nery said:
Preferably both, but maybe relative proportions are more relevant? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
We're probably looking for proportions here. We don't to be fooled by apparent growth simply fueled by population increases. We want to see if the movements are making a difference; if skepticism is unseating credulity.
 
I´m not if sure one can create a quantified "skeptic scale" or a skept-O-meter. I guess there´s a huge grey area. I know people who have some ridiculous beliefs like feng-shui but are very rigorous when it comes to professional decisions, relying just on data (and its interpretation) that have been submitted to rigorous tests... Professionally they are skeptics, but personally they are woos.

Luciana, are you sure that here in Brazil the number of atheists is rising? I hope you are right, but when I look around and see the last two governors of Rio, evangelic churches popping up as if by spontaneous generation (both in Rio and in Minas, not to mention on the northen states)... Also try listening radio in Belo Horizonte. Will be OK just if you want to hear evangelic tunes. Sometimes I can´t help but wonder when they will start to burn the fires of inquisition. Sorry for the rant.
 
A poll in Sweden in 2003 revealed that 28% of teenagers thought astrology is a science

Report in swedish

It doesnt exactly scream progress to me but I have nothing to compare to. Whats it like in other countries?
 
Vitnir said:
A poll in Sweden in 2003 revealed that 28% of teenagers thought astrology is a science

Report in swedish

It doesnt exactly scream progress to me but I have nothing to compare to. Whats it like in other countries?
Click to expand...
For comparison purposes, a recent U.S. poll of the midwest and south revealed 34% of teenagers thought God created Sweden as one of the original thirteen U.S. colonies.
 
I suppose that to measure skepticism, it might be helpful to develop a system of units.

We could measure skepticism in units of randis. One randi = one question cubed-research squared per claim.

It is possible that skepticism might be quantized. Trying to follow the classic convention (e.g., the smallest element of light is a "photon," the smallest element of negative charge is an "electron," the smallest element of a community is a "person"), then the smallest element of skepticism should be a "sagan" (pronounced "Say-gone").
 
Brown said:

We could measure skepticism in units of randis. One randi = one question cubed-research squared per claim.

.....

the smallest element of skepticism should be a "sagan" (pronounced "Say-gone").
Click to expand...

When will you finally get rid of the Royal system in favor of the metric one ?
 
El Greco said:
When will you finally get rid of the Royal system in favor of the metric one ?
Click to expand...
Actually, this is the metric system. The unit for "holding an allegation at arm's length" is the "randi-meter," even though most people's arms are less than a meter long.
 
Brown said:
I suppose that to measure skepticism, it might be helpful to develop a system of units.

We could measure skepticism in units of randis. One randi = one question cubed-research squared per claim.

It is possible that skepticism might be quantized. Trying to follow the classic convention (e.g., the smallest element of light is a "photon," the smallest element of negative charge is an "electron," the smallest element of a community is a "person"), then the smallest element of skepticism should be a "sagan" (pronounced "Say-gone").
Click to expand...

"Sagan" is already used. It is a prefix meaning billions and billions.
 
epepke said:


"Sagan" is already used. It is a prefix meaning billions and billions.
Click to expand...

Well if light is photons, gravity is gravitons, then skeptical quanta would be skeptons, and astrologer quanta, perhaps wootons? Of course, quanta of desire would be wontons, so that might get into the soup a bit.
 
BillHoyt, I wonder if the counts would be independent or dependent?

What do you think?
 
Very good answers - only you have just added more difficulties to the problem.

Correa Neto - atheism has risen if we compare the 1990 and the 2000 census. I'd have to check the numbers, though, but I"m sure about the increase. Still, we don't know if the number of atheists is higher or if it's just a matter of being less afraid of speaking their minds.

By 'success' what do you mean exactly? The number of skeptics, or the number of skeptics who were something else before being skeptics
Click to expand...

I suspect most skeptics were "something else" at some point of their lives. I'd be interested to see how many people are self-professed skeptics and, over a period of time, find out if the number has varied for better or for worse.

The skept-o-meter is a very neat idea. :)

What about a skepto-test? "Are you a skeptic? Find out here". I'm now thinking of a form to be filled, from the easiest to the most difficult:
Do you have or have had any paranormal powers?
Do you believe in angels/ghosts/aliens/astrology/feng shui? Would you take a homeopathic medicine if someone you trusted said it really works?
Do you have any superstitions? If so, do you admit they're irrational, or do you think they make some sense?
Are you open to the possibility that you might be wrong?
Do you know who James Randi is?
Have you ever donated money to a skeptical foundation?

And to each of these questions you'd be awarded a certain number of Randis (I liked the idea, Brown!). Ok, it can be improved, as it is it's quite ready for the next Cosmopolitan issue... but you get the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom