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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

cheers…