The Skepbitch

Scathing Skepticism and Social Commentary

Too skeptical yet not skeptical enough

Last week I chatted with a stranger and the topic turned to skepticism, “I don’t like that skeptic guy on TV. He’s a snob. All he says is ‘No. I disagree. You’re wrong. It isn’t true. I don’t believe in that’.”

Sound bites, editing with an agenda, and yes/no questions can portray a skeptic as a naysayer.

However, we don’t want to be gratuitous skeptics either.

That doesn’t help our objectives, or our profile.

It seems that skeptics can be too skeptical, or not skeptical enough.

How can we find a happy (non-paranormal) medium of skepticism?

Not that I claim to be the perfect skeptic. I don’t think there is such a thing. I can’t cast the first stone of skepticism, I’m still learning all the time, but I know when a skeptic has descended into leniency, or dickheadism…

And there will always be someone who’ll label you as a dogmatist or a cynic. Meanwhile, someone else will accuse you of being irresolute and wishy-washy – for saying the same bloody thing…

Since we’re talking cliches and catchphrases, here’s a skeptical motto or mantra to remind us that we’re aiming for logic, rationale and reason, rather than high-functioning autism.

Effective skepticism is about educating others, and educating ourselves.

When we educate others we teach critical thinking, dispel myths and explain how the world works.

This is NOT Proselytizing. This is NOT preaching. This is NOT converting. This is NOT dogma.

It’s simplistic to frame skepticism as a kind of religion; or atheism as another form of theism.

A gathering of atheists is not a church congregation. James Randi and Richard Dawkins aren’t messiahs. The similarities might make it easier for us to understand one thing in terms of another, but the differences make the meaning.

Educating ourselves is about research, knowledge, reassessment, re-evaluation and keeping an open mind. This is our skeptical maintenance, to be skeptical of ourselves. But this also requires an understanding of the beliefs and practices that exist. This is not a rote, aggressive, obnoxious dismissal and premature ejaculation rejection of, say, the opinions of Christians or psychics.

Now you know why no one will have sex with you but yourself…

It’s kinda obvious to me that a skeptic should be an amateur anthropologist, and an amateur psychologist.

Unless they just want to be a fucking snob.

Sometimes, skeptics make the very worst skeptics…

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

July 2, 2008 - Posted by skepbitch | Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

12 Comments »

  1. I don’t think it’s possible to be too much of a skeptic, not if we rely on reason. However, we can do it with style and not as a negative. I try to find ways to get my granddaughters (7 & 8) to just think positively about science, but it’s always a challenge to frame it in a way that grabs their interest in a positive way.

    As you said, educating.

    Comment by kevinbbg | July 2, 2008 | Reply

  2. I think the issue depends a lot of who you’re talking to, and how you want to frame the message.

    My gut feeling is that many, many skeptics are basically just ranting, and don’t really contribute much. Even with really famous skeptics like P.Z. Myers, I question what exactly they do to promote their agenda.

    So that’s the choice – are you out to rant, or are you out to change the world? The latter is something we science/skeptic bloggers are very, very bad at.

    Comment by Martin | July 2, 2008 | Reply

  3. A good skeptic should always have a sense of humor.
    Cynicism is ok – but it can get grating if overdone.
    But anyway, I reckon things are in our favor as skeptics are
    definitely happier according to a new survey!

    http://sycologist.blogspot.com/2008/07/skeptics-are-happier.html

    cheers…

    Comment by MJ | July 2, 2008 | Reply

  4. 1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

    I don’t think anyone minds having the light of skepticism shown on them when they feel like you are doing it because you care so much you will tell even a painful truth. But nobody wants to have what they believe torn up just so a skeptic can laugh at them. Speak truth, with love.

    Comment by truthwalker | July 2, 2008 | Reply

  5. Having been burnt for DARING (shock!!) to question fellow skeptics on their behaviour… meh, you said it all.

    And hades help me from more ranting… I can post fifteen proactive suggestions and just get more ‘yes, but you’re not as popular as X, so why should anyone care about you…’… bleah.

    Right, that’s it, I’m going to go fold a paper flying pig, that helps.

    Comment by podblack | July 4, 2008 | Reply

  6. It’s not so much a matter of skepticism as it is a matter of being an asshole. You can be one without being the other.

    Now, if the charge against the skeptic is that he or she is being ‘elitist,’ and has nothing to do with her or his attitude and everything to do with the content of his or her speech, then I’m afraid the charge is quite correct: rather than accepting the democratically accepted ‘common knowledge,’ we are in fact being elitist in insisting on going to actual research.

    The task, then, is to produce a shared ‘common knowledge’ of the culture which includes an acceptance of the idea of the authority of empirical evidence, and which does not accept the idea of the supreme authority of anecdote.

    Comment by phwise | July 10, 2008 | Reply

  7. [...] of Skepbitch kicks it like it should be – with her blog entry on ‘Too Skeptical And Yet Not Skeptical Enough’, as always, raising the big issues and questioning [...]

    Pingback by Skeptics Of Catlos, Er, Carlos! | podblack.com | July 13, 2008 | Reply

  8. I’m new to the art of public skepticism but can see that it is a difficult balancing act.

    I think that how you present an argument might, at times, depend on who your target audience is (other skeptics, interested agnostics or hard-bitten believers).

    Using two of the “bigger” names in skeptic blog circles: PZ (pharyngula) knows his real audience is atheists and skeptics in general and he plays to them. Sometimes too heavily, even for skeptics, but that seems to be his audience. Orac (respectful insolence)relies more on presenting evidence and, to me, seems more targeted to skeptics and agnostics. It’s difficult to know if there’s any point writing a skeptical blog targeted at true believers.

    One problem I have with gentle skeptics is that they can leave the door so wide open that even agnostics have trouble being convinced by them. I think people, in general, look for certainty from their educators so faced with the absolute belief of believers and the wishy-washy “I’m not convinced but maybe” of the skeptic, the “evidence” is weighted towards belief.

    I have to agree, though, that humour is an essential part of public skepticism.

    Comment by AndyD | July 15, 2008 | Reply

  9. [...] Too skeptical yet not skeptical enough July 22, 2008 Posted by Skepdude in Skepbitch, Skepticism. Tags: Atheism, Christians, cynic, education, James Randi, Psychics, Religion, Richard Dawkins, Skepticism, theism trackback CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ORIGINAL ENTRY AT “THE SKEPBITCH” [...]

    Pingback by Too skeptical yet not skeptical enough « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptic blogs of the day | July 22, 2008 | Reply

  10. Is Dawkins an atheist? I was under the impression that we was an atheistic agnostic…well, atheist for practical purposes, but technically an agnostic. I think when people claim that atheism is as stupid as theism, they mean that it’s just as foolishly absolute.

    Comment by Ed Statue | July 29, 2008 | Reply

  11. I must say it is hard sometimes to tread the line of skepticism, without wandering into the territory of bullheaded assholedom. I made the mistake of trying the role of the educator at a family gathering once, but the arguments being presented for the presence of god and ghosts, as much as I refuted them with evidence, were firmly fixed in my family members minds. It became infuriating that people could not “see it” and I must admit I learnt two lessons that night – don’t try and shake a true believers faith with aggressive arguments, and never discuss religion at family gatherings.

    Comment by Spankermatic | August 7, 2008 | Reply

  12. I identify as a skeptic (and an atheist) but am reticent to be publicly involved in the movement due to the awful sense of, how shall I put it, self importance (that’s not quite right)… let’s say ‘over-seriousness’ that seems to pervade some of the skeptical community.

    I recently moved from Sydney to Melbourne, and a few weeks ago I thought I might just trot along to one of the Melbourne Skeptics meetings to get a feel for the Melbourne scene. I was very disappointed to find myself at a table of the gruffest, most humourless and fractious people I’ve ever had the misfortune to dine with. Now I’m pretty hard-line myself, but I do have a sense of humour, something that was most definitely lacking from this crew. Not only that, I found myself defending my atheism! At a table full of skeptics! It was like these people had decided they were going to be skeptical of any point of view that was offered them.

    I don’t want to make this a story about that particular night – maybe I just picked a table full of people that didn’t suit my personality, or maybe they were just overly grumpy from a bad day at work. But my observation is that this does tend to be the perception of skeptics from outside the community – that we are not so much skeptical as cynical. Not so much rationalists as party-poopers. Not so much atheists as morally barren heathens.

    I was also surprised at the demographic of the group – a definite skew into the older-males-with-beards area. Not that I should throw stones, being in that parish myself, but I did find it a little dispiriting that there weren’t more young people there.

    I don’t know how we change this image, but it is clear to me that we must. We need an influx of educated, vibrant, active young people with senses of humour. For a start, other young people are likely to be much more easily persuaded to listen to rational argument by skeptics of their own age than by an old geezer like myself – no matter how amusing I can be.

    Like your blog. Will link you.

    Comment by anaglyph | August 29, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »