Critique of Scepticism

http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html

This link is to a blog post which is a long and fairly comprehensive critique of the sceptical movement in practice rather than in theory. I do not agree with all of it and in particular I do not accept the definition of neoliberal he or she uses: but that does not detract from the points made. Much of what he says fits with my own experience of "sceptical" boards and self identified "sceptics" in general. Indeed I have never identified myself as a "sceptic" for just these reasons.

I admire the range and scope of this post and I think it is well worth thinking about the substance of it, whether you agree or do not.

While I agree with most of the points, I think the idea of dumping skepticism is a bit overboard. The old saying about babies and bathwater comes to mind. I know of a number of skeptics who collude with Dawkins and their ilk, yet fail to live within the contraints of the author's version of skepticism.

Skepticism needs to grow up, but it won't do so if people like this continue to dump the movement as a whole.

For me the point is there is not, and should not be, a "movement". Perhaps it is my own prejudice: I am not especially "clubbable"

I don't understand. If there is no movement, how can we criticize a group known as "skeptics"?

That was not one of my better posts, sorry.

There is a group of people who self-identify as sceptics. There are other people who agree with much of what they have to say, but who do not so identify: I am one of them. You might call them "fellow travellers", if you were feeling mischievous.

I do not like groups. I recognise that if you want to get anything done they are probably essential: but, even knowing that, I do not like them. I find that the "group dynamic" destroys the goal, no matter how sincere most people are. It does so for all sorts of reasons: the will to power; the need for compromise; the internal disputes which give rise to factionalism; the demand for conformity; the tendency to invent an outgroup to foster the group identity. In the end I think all of those mean the group's capacity to achieve comes at a high price. Most of what the article is describing arises from those group processes: it is not unique to scepticism by any means. I am not certain if those processes are inescapable either: I don't think they are, really. But they are very powerful and they are continually reinforced in our society. It is hard to recognise them in practice, even if you know they are there and you try to be alert. Harder yet to resist them. Or to know when to resist.

For scepticism in particular I think the problem of "movements" in general is present in spades: and that is because I do not think "scepticism" has any content to speak of. Sceptical thinking is just thinking, really. Everybody thinks. So there is no basis for the identification that is not in some sense elitist that I can see. There is no wrong to right: no oppression to fight: nothing to suggest a "movement" is needed. That being so, there is no pressure to form a movement, nor to accept the costs of group think, which in other contexts may be necessary to pay.

I generally agree with you, Fiona. The main reason I see a movement is that there are a set of opposing movements. Some of which have been beaten back by the tide of skeptic influence, and some of which are still thriving.

The idea of the movement is to teach others the process of skepticism. Although it will fail to do so with the internally inconsistent ideaologies many of the most well known skeptics seem to have. I think that's where the post is valuable. It identifies many of the inconsistencies within the skepticism of those people.

Another criticism I have of the post is that the author identifies people as skeptics who do not themselves identify with the skeptic community, but instead are commonly referenced by skeptics. Charlie Brooker and xkcd leap to mind.

I don't really recognise "opposing movements". Can you give examples of that?

Going on a tangent from the origanal post, but I aslo agree with you on groups. There is some sort of tribal mentality about groups when formed, I feel, that puts men and women against each other for the silliest reasons. It is like a specific niche a species has in an enviroment (i.e. specific role). Only one can exist in it and the other not. Simmilar to the phrase 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us'. Two oppousing factions will compete till one is left, and even if the faction they are oppouses such actions (i.e. christianity) it would still try to suppress the other faction.

This is a rough genralisation and is my own opinion, but I feel there is 'some' element of truth in what I say (somewere).