The longer I read these fora and Phil Plait's blog, the more I wonder why those of you who spend so much time debunking bad science call yourselves "Skeptics", and yes that is with a capital "S". You even use it in the names of some of your organizations. But isn't a skeptic someone who doesn't believe something that's widely accepted? And when you know you're right and can back it up, that's not skepticism at all. Since there are global warming "skeptics" and evolution "skeptics", I think your use of the term gives a really wrong impression. Some more examples: vaccines are widely regarded as safe and effective; antivaxxers are skeptics. Man has been to the moon; those who don't believe it are skeptics. You seem to be putting yourselves on the wrong side.

"Debunkers" is a much better term. But "skeptic" seems to have gotten so deep into a certain culture now that it's too late to change.

No. Not at all. A skeptic is a person who evaluates claims based on evidence. Some fringe groups really, really like the word "skeptic," because it implies that they've any evidence at all. Some other fringe groups really, really like tarring anyone who doesn't believe them blindly with the word "skeptic" and imply that it means someone who will never believe, regardless of the evidence before them. That doesn't change the meaning of the word.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Sorry, Gillianren, it sounds to me as if you're selectively defining the word to describe the usage I'm talking about. I don't think the general public thinks of the meaning that way, and it's this perception that concerns me. Other definitions:

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. [including the cases when it is factual.]
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it. [That certainly works on this forum.]
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible. [Now there's one that's really opposite of BA.]
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

No, that's closer to the definition of "cynic". As Gillian says, a skeptic accepts only claims for which there is sufficient evidence.

Claims (and there are many upon many) that have no evidence to back them are simply not accepted.

But ultimately, skeptics are skeptical about _all_ claims. Evidence please.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Yes, this definition is accurate. A good skeptic questions everything. But there's a difference between doubt as a default position and outright rejection of evidence.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

So correct the word use when you hear it misheard. It's the best word to describe the real belief structure. It's a good word with a long heritage, and to give it up because people use it foolishly would itself be foolish. I am not "selectively" defining the word to mean what I want it to. I am giving the real definition of the word.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You seem to posture as if it is somehow wrong to be skeptical of something that is purported to be factual when it is indeed factual.

Do you think so? Why?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Of course it is, when one doesn't want to recognize the evidence behind the facts. I don't see any dictionary definition of "skeptical" that prevents it from being applied to antivaxxers, moon hoaxers and anti-evolutionists. What I'm saying is that all of you who have responded so far are narrowing the definition so that it fits yourselves, while ignoring how the general public defines the word.

You mean just like we mean something else by the word theory than what the general public does?

Here is a hint..

The general public talk about a theory as any idea.
Scientists talk about theory as in "Scientific theory".. but just say theory.

The general public talk about skeptic as being not believing in anything
Skeptics talk about skeptics as in "Scientific Skepticism".. but just say skeptic.

There is general skepticism (i doubt everything, per definition, on principle).
There is scientific skepticism (i doubt everything until i have seen enough evidence).

Not everything is decided by consensus. And least of all language.

On that note, I think I'm going to be a bit gay and have fag.

Smoking cigarettes really makes me happy.

"Skeptical", like many words, has different flavors of meaning. Skeptic in the sense of the skeptical movement or scientific skepticism isn't quite the same thing as sceptic in the sense of "I'm skeptical of the idea that vaccines are good for you."

Please Don't make any mistake : A skeptic don't believe inf UFO or paranormal or anything out of mainstream science or politics. If you are skeptical about mainstream positions on these subjects you are conspirational.

OK, before the next counter-post, I've looked up "skeptic" in a dozen different dictionaries. I should say you're not narrowing the definition, but choosing the one you prefer. I'd summarize my findings as breaking down into basically two definitions:

1) one who witholds acceptance of a purported fact until he/she has investigated and satisfied him/herself of its truth;
2) one who is inclined to doubt that anything can be known for sure (Pyrrhic).

No. 2 certainly doesn't apply to scientists, and while No. 1 pretty much describes an aspect of the scientific method, I don't think skepticism is inherently a characteristic of all scientists. I think most of us, if we read a paper by a respected researcher that is logically written, will tend to accept the results unless there's something in our own experience to make us suspect it. Since we spend as much time on this forum defending the Mainstream as attacking fringe ideas, I don't think skepticism is the best word to describe what we do here.

Am I making more sense yet? You seem very skeptical.

The word can mean multiple things...... It doesn't mean ALL of them, just one of them

Just like the word gay can mean multiple things.

Are you going to say i can't use the word gay to mean happy?

Definitions of gay on the Web:

* cheery: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile"
* full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth; "the jolly crowd at the reunion"; "jolly old Saint Nick"; "a jovial old gentleman"; "have a merry Christmas"; "peals of merry laughter"; "a mirthful ...
* given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies"
* brave: brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out in brave new dresses"; "brave banners flying"; "`braw' is a Scottish word"; "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage"
* offering fun and gaiety; "a festive (or festal) occasion"; "gay and exciting night life"; "a merry evening"
* homosexual or arousing homosexual desires

If you can't use the word gay to mean happy.. well, then.. i don't know, rewrite lord of the rings, the word gay is used in almost every chapter of the first book to mean:
* cheery: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile"

and not:
* homosexual or arousing homosexual desires

Just because some people use a word one way, it doesn't mean that others can't use it another way.

Am i making more sense yet? you seem very dogmatic.

Whoa, that's REALLY not skeptical. If it's outside the mainstream I'm not allowed to criticize it? If the government issues a report saying there is no evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial, and you question it, you're not a skeptic, but a fool?

Or do you mean to say, Galacsi, that that's been your experience with this forum?

Are you ignoring me?

The second refers specifically to a certain philosophical principle and should only be used in discussions of philosophy. This is not artificial narrowing. This is the correct usage of words. You'll note the parenthetical comment at the end; that's the philosophical school in question. In any other terms, the first one is correct. Again, I don't care if people use it incorrectly. That doesn't make them right any more than people using "its" when they mean "it's" and vice versa makes that correct.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yes of course and that why I don't post anymore in the ATM or UFO threads.

Because your post does not make him gay ! Whatever sense you want to give to this word . . .

OK Tobias, I'll bite. I think the whole gist of my post, and follow-ups, is that how the general public defines skepticism is important. I think there's a wide range of possible interpretation of the definitions I've just seen. People might well say, "Why do you call yourselves skeptics when you never question the mainstream and only shoot down fringe ideas? That's not skepticism." And does one forfeit any claim to skepticism if one doubts some fact and is just not a very good judge of the evidence for it?

They were never intend to, in any sense of the word.

Skeptics go for the mainstream as well.. Currently the mainstream is that homeopathy is, at worst, aok, and chiropracty is great. We go against that.

Sure, within the skeptic community that is fringe.. but in the general publics opinion it isn't.

Skeptics also go for other mainstream things... like many common urban myths(microwaving of the dog, etc).

I think your claim that skeptics only go for the fringe(at least by the general publics opinion) is wrong.

I also think you completely ignored my argument that it doesn't matter what the general public thinks something means.. it might mean something entirely different... and we should tell them what it really means.
(just like.. it doesn't matter what the general public thinks.. they are wrong... and we should tell them what the reality of it is.)

I would also like to note that this is
A) wrong
B) misrepresentation
C) a straw man

If "sceptic" were not to be used because of a popular change of meaning, then it would be necessary to coin a term to denote the sense of scepticism which is being lost. I find it preferable to stay with "sceptic".

MAPNUT, you are not alone in feeling as you do. I invite you to read the article linked here.

The way I see it, 'skeptic' is just a label. Perhaps the BA has adopted it because of his growing association with James Randi. But does it really matter how you label yourself? Surely how you act is the most important...

P.S. You may also like Ken G's thread Skepticism in Science.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

And that's where I disagree. For one, I don't think the general public defines "skeptic" the way you claim they do. For another, it's a valuable enough word to fight for. It has been suggested that scientists come up with a new word for "theory" because the general public gets it so wrong, and consensus here is that by far the better solution is to work at educating the general public. I believe that is also the case here.

ETA--And "debunkers" doesn't have the same meaning. Skeptics do not debunk everything. In quite a lot of cases, skeptics evaluate the evidence and then accept whatever-it-is.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I second the idea of educating folks. Not so much because I feel an urge to mandate how every word is used, but because educating people about the meaning of "skeptic" and "theory" that I prefer accomplishes the more valuable goal of teaching about the process of reasoning and critical thinking.

Besides, if you come up with a new word for theory then all you've done is created a new word. That won't really get you far, anyway - language has a nasty habit of changing when you look a way for a moment. The Académie française can't manage to keep a much smaller language with much fewer speakers pinned down, so trying the same with English is probably hopeless.

If you explain what theory means in a scientific context, though, there's a whole host of interesting concepts you can branch off into: testable predictions, different models for different contexts (Newton vs. Einstein, for example) and the map/territory distinction, provisional conclusions, etc. That's a good thing no matter what name you give it.

The concept you're talking about, MAPNUT, is called "framing the debate". It's an attempt to steer (hijack, really) a debate by poisoning the meaning of certain words.

The hijack was successful with the word "hacker", for example, because hackers were unwilling or unable to fight back. "Terrorist" is a heavily contested word in its own arena right now. Homosexuals fought back, and were somewhat successful in reclaiming "gay" and "queer".

Like "theory" in the scientific sense, "skeptic" as a useful word is also under attack for much the same reasons. But giving up linguistic ground at the first volleys is no way to win.

No. A theory is a factual scientific explanation. A skeptic evaluates the evidence before deciding, and alters that decision according to any newly discovered evidence. Anything else is dogma.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm glad I started it, although I'm amazed that I could be so wrong! I could still swear that all those definitions of skeptic were not the same.

However, I may be willing to concede that what you've all been talking about (all!?!) is the best definition. Why? Because you can define "skeptical" as the opposite of "credulous". And while people like antivaxxers and moon hoaxers may be skeptical about one idea, they are extremely credulous about another. A real skeptic wouldn't accept anything that's at all dubious. You win.

It would be fun to try to classify atheists, agnostics and believers in terms of skepticism, but strictly against the rules!

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Different types of Skepticism:

"Academic" or "Cartesian" Skeptics: followers of Plato's Academy.

Reason is paramount. We cannot know anything about the future, or anything about the contents of someone else's mind, or anything about the past, or anything at all about the "external world."

"Epistemist" Skeptics

We CAN know about the future, we can know about the contents of someone else's mind, or about the past, or about the "external world."

"Pyrrhonian" Skeptics

Inquiry is paramount, and a skeptic is an inquirer. Our position is not doubt or denial or disbelief, but continual inquiry. For example, We do not believe in the reality of a god, but neither do we deny it. Nor do we say that nobody could ever know for certain one way or the other, as agnostics do. Instead we say of god, "I personally do not know at the moment but I am trying to find out."

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

After all english is not my mother tongue and may be when I read "Skeptic" 'english) I understand "sceptique" (french) . somebody who has doubts whatever the subject whatever he is right or wrong. It seems to me Mapnut gave the same definition.And from what I found in internet I think he was right. But in this forum the meaning is restricted to doubting only what is out the mainstream. It is a philosophical or may be political position. Difficult to go further without trespassing the rules !

It is an evidence based position. I evaluate claims based on the evidence. I accept things supported by overwhelming evidence. I doubt things that have little evidence.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser