If this is scepticism, I'm out of here...

[Max]

Sceptics examine whether there is sufficient evidence to accept that a claim occurred for reasons other than by chance. Sceptics therefore never reject claims - they simply say that there is insufficient evidence to say that the event didn't happen just by chance.

1. It horrifies me when experts like Julian last night talk about Sceptics rejecting claims.

2. It freaks me out that many of the people at Sceptics in the Pub also seem to think that scepticism is about rejecting claims. And that therefore, many are not sceptics in the sense that they do not understand scientific method.

Why are they there? I'm not sure. Because it provides a legitimate platform to slag off people with beliefs different to their own? Because it's a social group?

I think we need two sceptical groups:

1. One for those who understand the principles of skeptical inquiry and scientific method and don't want to hear the same old tired discussions over and over again or try to educate attendees (and speakers) about basic research principles.

2. A second one (the existing group?) for those who don't really care about the mechanics of scepticism, but like to hear speakers that sound reasonably credible and who like them don't believe in homeopathy or astrology.

Or perhaps we need an educational programme? Members need to demonstrate that they know what skepticism is about before they come to meetings? Seems a bit draconian that one - but man, there's a lack of education going on here.

Or else the group must stop calling itself Sceptics because it simply is not.

Anyone agree? Disagree? Care?

[Phil McKerracher]

I couldn't make it to Julian's talk, unfortunately, and you're welcome to your opinion, but I thought the whole point of these meetings was to bounce ideas off one another. We can't do that if we split into two (or more) groups or close the door to all but "proper" skeptics.

[Max]

Hi Phil

Well then perhaps Skeptics in the Pub must acknowledge it is a social group that enjoys bouncing ideas off one another rather than a skeptical organisation because the tenets of what are being thrown around are not scientific skepticism.

This is not why I joined and like Wayne Spencer (and possibly others), perhaps it's time for me to leave since my objectives are so different.

But rather than simply leave, I hoped there might also be an opportunity to create a group that bounces sceptical ideas off each other (instead of what is happening in the pub?)

Cheers

Max

[Phil McKerracher]

You're more than welcome to set up your own group if you want. I can provide a forum and web page for it, but I don't have time to do much more than that.

[Max]

Thanks very much Phil. I don't think I have the bandwidth to start or run a group. I think ASKE probably comes closer to meeting my personal needs apropos skeptical thought.

Max

[Trinoc]

I wouldn't take my criticism as far as Max, but I do agree with the the drift of some of his points.

Julian Baggini's talk was titled Being sceptical of scepticism, so I was hoping for something rather more addressing the point that skeptics tend to shout "yah-boo" at almost any left-field idea that comes along, without applying the same sort of critical thinking to their own criticisms. Julian told us we should not debunk just for the sake of debunking, then came out with the bald statement that "all alternative medicine is rubbish"! Huh? Like Indian medicine that's been around for thousands of years? Like herbs which formed the basis for modern medicine but which are only just being subjected to clinical trials, a lot of which have shown up useful effects? Like trying to stay healthy rather than waiting for something to go wrong and then running to the doctor?

It was very easy to ridicule that favourite topic, homoeopathy, by concentrating as usual on the absurdity of the infinite dilution principle. I'm no fan of homoeopathy, and personally I think it probably is rubbish, but there is more to it than giving people sugar pills or distilled water and telling them it's a drug. I would like to hear someone at a meeting - I know one of the regulars is a homoeopathic practitioner - give us the other side of the argument and tell us about aspects such as the treatment of the whole patient rather than just specific disorders. It would take a lot to convince me, but it is bad skepticism just to dismiss it by concentrating on one convenient target.

I like Skeptics in the Pub both as a social gathering of mostly like-minded people and as a forum for lively debate, but I find there is a danger that we can become the unthinking defenders of orthodoxy, giving not a lot more thought to our ideas than is given by those whom we criticise. There is a danger that we will become a bit like Sense About Science - a group eager to debunk anything the slightest bit "alternative" while being blind to the things which might need debunking in the mainstream. Biblical parables about motes in eyes may be appropriate here.

We must be skeptical of our own skepticism, as I thought Julian Baggini was going to advocate. We don't do ourselves or our subject any credit by concentrating only on the easy targets.

[Max]

I think Trinoc alludes to an interesting point. I suspect most attendees (including me) put speakers into one of two groups: skeptics or believers. Of course I'm sure it's not as simple as this and that there is a more complex continuum. But advantage of this simple dichotomy is that is helps attendees create a framework for what is about to come.

I, probably like most there, had placed Julian in the category of knowledgeable skeptic, based, for example, on his writing in various skeptical media.

While I was disappointed with the skeptical quality of his presentation, my real concern is the number of people in the room who may not have noticed.

This means that as a group, we are not doing enough to educate our members and to ensure their growth as skeptics.

Now that is very presumptive of me because I am projecting my personal objectives onto other members. But perhaps they don't really want to know about the in's and out's of skepticism - perhaps everyone does just want a reasonably intelligent debate whether "properly" skeptical or not followed by a piss up.

And just for the record, I'm first in the line for a piss-up, but I disagree with us calling the content - especially of speakers like Julian (as opposed to Louis, Chris, Richard, etc. - "skepticism". And I am not saying I am an expert, but I make the effort to study it quite rigorously.

I predict that unless our group understands and articulates its mission, we are in danger of losing direction and fragmenting. Perhaps observations like mine or Tricon speed or even cause this fragmentation. I don't know.

[Killer Blob]

Who are the attendees of SitP? And what DO they want? As Trinoc pointed out, one regular is a homeopath. Others are Forteans and/or pagans who have overlapping interest with us but are not skeptics. I've spoken to other people who called themselves Skeptics but who didn't seem so to me; there are people I would call "narrow-minded debunkers" and others who have an irrational belief in one thing or another. The crowd attending varies in total number from month to month and there are new faces every time. Julian could have done the same talk that he did last time he was guest speaker at SitP and there wouldn't have been more than 5 of us who would have known.

What % of the audience will be skeptics next month with Timothy Good speaking? Could be a very high turn out with 50% nutters.

[Max]

Good point and in my opinion, it extends the discussion actually. Namely, if I'm in the audience of the e.g. a Psychic Society meeting, I don't attack the group until I understand their objectives and assumptions. That's just common courtesy. (God help them though when we all agree that I do understand their objectives cause then I feel freer to let rip).

Wouldn't it be nice if the homeopaths and other "believers" in our audience did the same - took the trouble to learn a little about skepticism before defending their claims and attacking our approach?

Come to that, wouldn't it be nice if some of the people who label themselves as skeptics (like Julian ostensibly does) learned what skepticism was about too?

I wish he would respond here actually. He is after all a philosopher and perhaps he might assert that philosophers have a different definition of skepticism. If this view supports his statement that "skeptics would reject something like homeopathy or acupuncture if there wasn't enough evidence", I'd be interested in how he came to it.

Cheers

Max

PS: Julian, scientific skepticism doesn't reject stuff. The best it can offer (admittedly not much) is to say there is insufficient evidence to support a particular claim. Julian would no doubt respond that while skepticism doesn't reject stuff, skeptics (in their private capacity as part-time human beings probably do). In this case, he needs to be more careful about separating the skeptic from skepticism, and the scientist from science.

[kipster]

Right on the money Max!

Belief is "The acceptance that a proposition is true"
Faith is "Belief in the absence of empirical data"
Skepticism is "Suspending belief in the absence of empirical data"