![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
A very current example of irrationalism is brewing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Myth Florida ( talk) 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
By restricting scientific evidence to findings that can be verified and falsified (and, implicitly, repeated), the description of science in "scientific skepticism" includes only one narrow type of work that scientists actually do: controlled experimentals. It precludes all observational, descriptive, and uncontrolled studies, which are undoubtedly performed by scientists and which are used as evidence by other scientists. Some of these are elaborated in the Study design article. (That article could use some expansion to include, for instance, correlation studies and naturalistic observational studies, and presently only refers to medical experiments.)
As some person points out earlier in these comments, there are many things claimed which cannot be tested, but would fall well within the realm of another study design used by actual scientists to publish actual evidence. In some cases, this is because testing would be harmful to the subjects. Scientists are usually ethically bound to avoid harming to their human subjects. In some cases, this is because the phenomenon in question is not under the scientist's control (such as naturalistic observation). In some cases, this is because there are no trained observers of the phenomenon, and the scientist is simply trying to observe trends to establish a testable hypothesis. (And sometimes, testable hypotheses are impossible, as with, for example, the tragedy of the commons.)
It just seems that for a philosophy called "scientific skepticism", said skeptics are restricting themselves to an extremely narrow range of science. It might be better to say that scientific skeptics constrain themselves to the current scientific consensus in a given field, and that the nature of these constraints can change over time as the consensus changes. A simple link to the consensus article would be sufficient to describe that it only includes the majority of scientists and that dissenting views may exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HorridRedThings ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The Perceived dangers of pseudoscience section lists the following individuals as holding views that pseudoscience is bad:
Should this be cited? Do we need evidence that these writers actually consider themselves rational/scientific skeptics, or that their reason for opposing said claims is due to their rational skepticism? HorridRedThings ( talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the template of this WikiProject to Audiophile. I don't know if the article requires any immediate attention, but interested project members may want to keep an eye on it. -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Scientific skepticism is not really skeptical from a philosophical point of view. It doesn't doubt the current scientific method and the established paradigm. From the outlook it has more to do with positivism ( Auguste Comte) rather than skepticism ( Sextus Empiricus). Anyone please explain how justified is it to call scientific skepticism "skepticism"? Wandering Courier ( talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we trim down the "See also" section?
I was surprised to find that there's no mention of, say, Phil Plait and Ben Goldacre, but there's a lot of stuff in the "See also" section and it could probably do with a good pruning. -- TS 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A skeptic, Marcello Truzzi disagreed with some of his colleages about the approach to take to extraordinary claims. He held that those who failed to remain agnostic in the face of extraordinary claims were taking on a burden of proof, and he termed them pseudoskeptics. His argument was quite a subtle one and it's not clear that he always used the term quite as subtly as that. However the modern usage of the term, which enjoys some small currency mostly amongst adherents of extraordinary claims, almost invariably refers to Truzzi's position. I've cleaned a lot of web-based junk out of the article on pseudoskepticism and little remains except Truzzi's original usage. I suggest that we consider merging the material here. Failing that (and perhaps preferably) we could merge the material to Marcello Truzzi. -- TS 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Perceived dangers of Pseudoscience" section contains this line: "Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways."
What question?
64.80.108.52 ( talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of links from the old pseudoskepticism article which I think may be useful as sources for this article.
-- TS 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Is WikiProject Rational Skepticism involvment in this article WP:POV and WPCONFLICT? Seems like it is. It seems that you have activist skeptics maintaining this article to show them in a good light.
I usually don't edit Wikipedia, but I noticed this when I saw the term "activist debunker" used on another site, and I did a Google search of Wikipedia yesterday for the term. I found the term was still in Google's cache, but removed from this site just that day. I added back the part of the article which was on that page for the past three years, to have it removed by someone whose history is clearly one of an activist debunker. It seems clearly POV and Conflict to me, and I now see this page, and it seems like it's maintained by a group that is POV. 24.209.226.121 ( talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Scientific skepticism is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.
Pseudoskepticism is making negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.
The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
93.86.201.173 ( talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I know Verbal, you don't think my changes are any good. Please explain. Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not playing games Blippy, just justify your edit or drop it. It's what we all have to do when challenged. Please stay on topic and try not to make this personal. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, from BURDEN - part of WP:V. You added uncited material (you even added the cn tag). Verbal chat 09:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Blippy, I removed your edit because it seemed to be largely cosmetic in nature and the sole material addition to the article was tagged "citation needed" by you yourself. We shouldn't deliberately add material that we cannot source to articles, because that's against our policy on verifiability. Please get a source for your addition.
On the cosmetic changes you made, I don't think they added anything and they certainly didn't add to readability. -- TS 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if some of these improvements are still warranted, as I hit an ( edit conflict) with TS. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
References
This is partially an appeal for assistance. I do not normally edit in this area however I have become interested in this recently. it appears to me that there are those who attach themselves to skepticism with an unscientific belief in a particular viewpoint. I.e. X does not accord with my scientific world view therefore it is pseudoscience therefore it must be opposed, rather than approaching a topic with scientific agnosticism.
To me this entirely misses the point, it attempts to fix science as a finalised set of known things, it is a belief that we know all there is to be known. Rather than rational skepticism it is irrational skepticism.
I find no mention of this nor any place in which what should be covered by scientific/rational skepticism is or could be discussed. Daffodillman ( talk) 06:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why somebody has removed the link to Skeptic Links, citing WP:EL. Seems an entirely appropriate and useful link to me.
WP:EL actually says
Links to be considered
3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations.
Annamonckton ( talk) 08:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We can make this distinction? If so how so, if not why not? Are S. S. better than P. S.? Hmmmmmmmmmm. ... I'm highly skeptical about the distinction! -- Ludvikus ( talk) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A "professional scientist" is someone who works as a scientist. A "skeptic" in the sense of this page can be a lay person. Also, clearly not all scientists, professional or not, are skeptics. Take Francis_Collins_(geneticist), not a "skeptic", but hightly regarded scientist. Example of a well known "skeptic": Penn Jillette, not a scientist. 217.171.129.68 ( talk) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC) edited for typo: 217.171.129.68 ( talk) 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I recommend at least 3 headings for this article. Each heading has to do with distinguishing Scientiffic Skepticism from a noted similar yet separate counterpart. Here, I abbreviate Scientiffic Skepticism as "SSk" and I add abbreviations next to the "counterpart" to separate Ssk from, next to the title. Just temporary abbreviations.
IE: The definition of ssk can work in the format: "Ssk is different from PK because (blabla). . . Ssk is different from and different from gs because (blabla) . . . Ssk is different from . . .
(1) *Philosophical Skepticism. (PK)
Ssk is different from PK because PK challenges the theory of knowledge rather than the theory of evidence. Whereas PK can challenge the theory of inductive reasoning and measurement, Ssk does not. Ssk can only challenge the *verifiability and *plausability of evidence, not its purpose.
(2) *general science (gs)
Ssk is different from gs because gs looks for a common *best theory, whereas Ssk does not necessarily accept any theory as plausible.
(3) *Pseudoscience (ps)
Ssk is different from Ps because it will argue the coercive nature of a claim rather than make a claim itself. (Eg: Ssk will argue why naysayers of global warming are oilmoney-conglomorates, or why global warming is argued by directionless peaceniks, rather than list evidence for only one Thesis [global warming] or an antithesis [no global warming])
OBJECTIVES of Ssk
The main objective of Ssk is to weed out ps from all gs. Ssk does not aim to challenge the melting pot where new frontiers are made, but to challenge non-scientiffic agendas from creeping up where new groundwork has been laid. gs paves the way through frontiers, Ssk is intended to clean up the fine lines behind it where ps can creep up. Some of its guidelines . . .
-All religious views associated with science is pseudoscience. -All research made to support a political agenda is pseudoscience. -(Nearly?) all fallacious arguments are pseudoscience. -All corporate funded research has to make account regarding the stakes of the funders toward one outcome of the research.
Gaiaguerrilla ( talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure this only applies to the routine debunking of pseudoscience, and not to mainstream ideas?
The above quote would seem to apply to widely accepted theories such as AGW. There's a controversy over whether Mann's hockey stick graph was ever subjected to enough checking by other scientists. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journalsApplication of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here [5]. PPdd ( talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've started a History subsection and added an entry for one of the first scientists credited with helping establish a tradition of skepticism in science. Please feel free to add more examples, particularly from European history. This page was a little skimpy for such a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.21.141 ( talk) 12:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding an unofficial second opinion agreeing with Dougweller's removal of these paragraphs. They seemed to come out of nowhere and seriously derailed the article. The claims made would also need to be reliably sourced instead of being the personal opinion of the editor adding them. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I've seen " scientific skepticism" used more broadly than in the context of rejecting fringe claims or debunking pseudoscience. It would seem to be a more general approach than the position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence (note that the latter link goes to Empirical research.
The issue is typically whether the work of a particular scientist or scientific team is satisfactory to other scientists. For many scientists, publication of results in a peer-reviewed journal is the beginning, not the completion, of the process whereby a new scientific discovery is made and shared with the world. In many cases, work that has been published is then checked and even challenged, particularly when contrary results are also published. Perhaps this is more common in the social sciences and life sciences than in the hard sciences where the term "competing studies" is frequently found.
Typically, other scientists need months or years to have a chance to verify with their own studies or experiments that a particular claim "holds water". So I'd like to suggest that we enlarge the scope of this article to include this idea. Particularly, we need a section on replication of results which is more than a redirect to " Experiment". == Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Three longish cquotes in the lead is a bit much. I've chopped 'em as WP is not a collection of quotes. Summarize what they are about rather than just collect your favorite quotes. Vsmith ( talk) 18:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Carl Sagan's image is clearly relevant to this article. I am restoring it. -- Greenmaven ( talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "Extraordinary claims" redirects here. The text asserts that "...extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity".
I see two issues here. One is that the phrase "Extraordinary claims" is not defined here, nor is it referenced to who made the statement, nor is the phrase "extraordinary evidence" defined. (A reference to Sagan might be appropriate.)
The second is that "extraordinary evidence" is in fact precisely the amount of evidence that is required to support a standard scientific claim. What this means is that for any scientific theory to be accepted, really a lot of extraordinary evidence must be gathered. A little thought on this statement shows it is absolutely true. No theory is really accepted by scientists until quite a lot of work has been put into defining, validating, and duplicating evidence to support it. Thus "extraordinary" evidence by definition. So if I tell you that beer is wet, only ordinary evidence is required. If I tell you that E=MC squared -- you want extraordinary evidence -- and a lot of effort was in fact spent to gather that evidence to prove that equation!
So in fact it is not just "extraordinary claims" that require "extraordinary evidence" -- it is any scientific hypothesis that wants to be considered a theory that requires "extraordinary evidence". And in that sense, any new theory before it becomes accepted by the scientific establishment is in fact an extraordinary claim. E=MC squared was at one time an extraordinary claim. So the statement as it exists here in this article is reasonable -- but some context would be good. SunSw0rd ( talk) 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If proper sources can be found, it ought to be explicitly pointed out which forms of academic research scientific skepticism does not endorse, such as, perhaps, the historical method, research in the humanities, parts of what it normally termed the social sciences, and more. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No, that is an incorrect invoking of IAR. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has several issues. There is no use adding any contributions somewhat critical to scientific skepticism to the article as they are promptly removed by adherents of the movement; instead, I provide a list:
... because that article has no direct connection to this topic. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't based on dictionary definitions but the concepts; the translations are irrelevant. The issue with your wikilinks is that they aren't about their relationship to scientific skepticism. The subject of this article. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Kaleidoscope of different colours - there are goofballs who believe in the paranormal while at the same time they claim to be skeptics. For example there's Susan Blackmore who holds important positions in both the world of parapsychology and skepticism (of course, she's plainly deluded) Dickie birdie ( talk) 10:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"Scientific skepticism ( also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility" This should be modified, because skeptics quite often undertake empirical research themselves. Also because skeptics can and do accept claims that are not reproducible (Big Bang, human evolution, the Holocaust). Perhaps the Skeptic Dictionary entry can help with ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.84.46 ( talk) 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The line that states skeptics essentially reject qualitative research needs a citation. I have looked by googling "skeptic qualitative research" (without quotes). The best I've found so far is a blog post from Skepchick who refers to "...some members of the skeptic community that over-depend on quantitative data and further seek to minimize the usefulness of qualitative data". Note that even that post doesn't go as far as saying those skeptics outright reject qualitative research.
It may be that someone of great imprortance to the ideas of scienctific skepticism has rejected qualitative research. However I have not yet been able to find this stated anywhere. And even if it were, I think you'd need some evidence that this is true of skeptics in general.
I think the problem with the statement (that skeptics reject qualitative research) possibly stems from trying to equate Scientific Skepticism closely with Positivism. While it may be true that skepticism tends towards Positivism (a citation would be useful though) they do differ substantially.
Therefore I'd think it helpful if anyone can find a good source that either confirms or rejects the statement. If no source is forthcoming, I'd suggest removing the statement. Britskep ( talk) 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost every different skeptical outlet has a particular definition of what skepticism means. This Wikipedia entry should try to do so if possible, given the extensive disagreement about what exactly (scientific) skepticism is. Currently is lacks such a definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.84.46 ( talk) 19:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In "About the term and its scope", we find this quotation: "A daughter of empiricism, scientific skepticism fundamentally rejects Platonic realism." I suggest that any reference to Platonic realism be removed for the following reasons:
He preferred the perfection of these mathematical abstractions to the imperfections of everyday life. He believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waist their time observing the stars and planets; it was better, he believed, just to think about them.
Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment, that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians.
Plato's unease with the world as revealed by our senses was to dominate and stifle Western philosophy. ... Their influence has significantly set back the Human endeavour.— Sagan, Cosmos, ep. 7
I have removed the sentence in question. I welcome oppposing views, but so far, we only have a quote from Sagan saying he didn't like one part of Plato's ethos, but that criticism doesn't address Platonic realism per se, only the position that the universals are more important than phenomena. That position is distinct from Platonic realism, so the "fundamentally rejects" claim remains unsupported. Flies 1 ( talk) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As Dkriegls correctly pointed out, simply citing Carl Sagan's books does not prove he was the first to use the term "scientific skepticism". In fact, it's easily refuted with a simply search in Google Books, that shows the combination of the words "scientific" and "skepticism" can be traced back to at least the 19th century. A preliminary reading of some of the contexts in which the term can be found seems to indicate it did not necessarily carry the same meaning as today (it mainly comes up in discussion about religion, and seems to be about the apparent unwillingness of scientists to take Christian claims on faith), but that is also just my own original research. If anyone knows an article that documents the etymology of "scientific skepticism" for us, and that we can quote, that would be much appreciated. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"Used or promoted by Carl Sagan, Steven Novella and others, the phrase “scientific skepticism” as a descriptor or synonym for the skeptical movement is relatively recent. It has been widely adopted as a means of differentiating the niche literature of science-based, investigative skeptical critique of paranormal and fringe science claims—often called simply “skepticism”—from other types of doubt and from other uses of the word “skeptic” (such as fringe science “climate change skeptics”). However, the phrase “scientific skepticism” predates this current use within movement skepticism, and has at least one other meaning: “the attitude of constructive doubt appropriate for scientific practice”—a related but distinct meaning which can lead to confusion. In the context of this essay, I will use “scientific skepticism” as a synonym for science-based critique of paranormal and fringe science claims, for the literature that grew out of that critical practice, or for the movement that grew up around that practice."
PS: It's unfortunate that Loxton does not specify what he means by 'relatively recent'. Does he mean Sagan's 1985 reference, earlier or later? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The main point of this article is that we ought to be skeptical about the paranormal - or maybe medical quackery. I thought it should focus a lot more on the idea that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim; and on the "continual questioning of ideas and results is a means of overturning long-held assumptions and uncovering new ideas" that are true. In other words, as a check on orthodoxy and bias. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Polentarion, i like a lot of what you seem to be adding with your recent edits although i bid you to be careful of any appearance of edit warring due to the fact that the lede edit has gone back and forth now one time, so please be careful and come to discuss before editing any more the lede. There is much good effort to your large effort there, and i hope it can all be discussed well and carefully and in a very civil way here. SageRad ( talk) 12:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess Sagerad refers to the use of scientism as a language of faith (Hammer 2001:201f, quoted several times in the papers in question). Point is, I don't see the revert as being justified - page references are included and the stuff is available per google books. But I won't revert again and will be patient for the sake of consent. Polentarion
Talk
13:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC) PS.: I did some copyedits and I am adding some page references.
The previously given definitions are partially based on blogs or creed-like. They mainly are being based one the likes of Kurtz, will say internal sources, which try to define "new scepticism" as a method based on the ancient greek traditions and embracing the scientific method. As Skeptic magazine puts it, an ancient and noble public service tradition. I doubt they warrant an article different from the one about the movement. The movement is real and has been described by third party scholarly sources. Daniel Loxton has been claimed as "historian", which is bunk, but his definition is the most useful so far. Polentarion Talk 10:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Rational inquiry currently redirects to scientific skepticism. I think the redirect should be the other way around as there are four times as many hits for "rational inquiry" on google than "scientific skepticism". Rational inquiry describes more what this article is mainly about, people trying to use the scientific method and in particular the tool of scientific skepticism to debunk pseudoscience and trying to get more rational decisions in everyday life. Scientific skepticism itself can then be used to describe skepticism as used in the scientific method and have a hat pointing to rational inquiry. Does anyone have objections? Dmcq ( talk) 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I assume that Howard Sankey's 2016 "Scientific Realism and the Rationality of Science" could be helpful to combine both approaches. But as said, the movement merits its own article. Why not split? Polentarion Talk 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
feel free to edit that list. Perceived dangers of pseudoscience is about pseudoscience, the see also is way too long, but maybe you find something there. That said, the easy thing is extract the content in question to Rational inquiry and to move the main part here to Sceptical movement. Rational inquiry should contain the edit history already. Polentarion Talk 15:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(note: this heading was added in arrears by P William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC))
Dmcq, I ask for a move to sceptical movement, already in 2014. If you believe that Rational inquiry is a separate topic, write it, so far about splitting. I see Rational inquiry as method of modern sceptics as being covered already in Debunking and a myriad of articles about different aspects of the scientific method. That said, method is being covered here as well in
The main content is in so far about people and organizations, will say the movement, not about method. If you really feel that a larger part of the article belongs to rational inquiry or anywhere else, expand the list accordingly. Polentarion Talk 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this talk page warrants an archive. OK? Polentarion Talk 16:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, so where's the move discussion then? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"The movement formed due to controversies between established modern medicine and alternative therapies and lay healers, as well as to deal with spiritualism and paranormal phenomena"
I doubt that. Usually Comité Para (1947) is said to be the first such organization, and alternative medicine was not one of its focuses.
I cannot find the quote anywhere on the net, and I suspect it is taken out of context, misattributed, or otherwise wrong. I'd like to see the full quote where the books (sources 1 and 2) say that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Kim Schlotmanns 2014 "Ockhams Rasiermesser in der Skeptikerbewegung" (Occams Razor in the sceptical movement) sounds like an interesting work both on an important tool claimed by sceptics and its role in the sceptical movement. It is based on a German Bachelor's thesis. I check for further publications. Polentarion Talk 12:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the following sections need some improvement
Point is, "examples" deals with debunking. Debunking is an important ritual in the trade and as well notoriously futile. As pointed out in the astrology example, astrology has been debunked since ages - but to no avail. Hammer provides some points why - e.g. the focus on science and less on humanities. If you want to explain the ongoing success of astrology, you need too refer to its role as a ritualized divination and the relationship between clients and astrologers or the fun of reading a horoscope in a magazine. Both the Pseudoskepticism and the dangers of pseudoscience do not belong here. I suggest to cut them down to a mere link in the plain text or the overview. Polentarion Talk 13:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That section sounds like a merger of a fanzine with an press release. Its been claimed that more women take part but the main issue - the movement being dominated by nerdy male tekkie buffs with no idea of the humanities - has been deleted, not addressed. That said, the article is in danger of getting back into fandom. Polentarion Talk 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The membership of the movement is predominantly male and often has a background in the natural sciences and engineering. There is a significant lower ratio of female members and as well the humanities and social sciences have a lower place. An important difference is the one between wet and dry sceptic, the latter prefering to debunk paranormal claims, the former interested in actual examination of such phenomena.. [1] The early controversy between Kurtz and Truzzi in the USA (in Germany, a similar conflict arised around GWUP founding member Edgar Wunder) resulted in a dominance of the dry sceptics.
Hi there. The first version contained a source. The rest, e.g. about the predominantly male tekkie background is a obvious, sourcing is already provided in the article, e.g. Hess respectively Dyrendal and Hammer and Ciscop itself. The skepchick scandal already got a separate article, Rebecca Watson. That said, I ask to restore the content and I will provide separate sourcing if required. Polentarion Talk 22:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the above that is UNDUE and PROMO; there is potentially useful content here but it needs to be reworked. Copied here, per WP:PRESERVE.
At the fortieth anniversary of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, editor Kendrick Frazier asked "scientists and skeptics who have come to prominence ... in the last twenty years" their thoughts on scientific skepticism. The responses received from the nineteen respondents were varied but fell into two categories "Issues and Odysseys in Science and Skepticism". [2] The "Odysseys" reflects the various paths they found to scientific skepticism. [3]
Science educator Bill Nye writes that the "overwhelming concern is human-caused global climate change." He states that we are already behind schedule as society has been "hoodwinked by climate change deniers, who suggest that 30,000 scientists are involved in a worldwide conspiracy. Nye wants society to promote science policies to "provide clean water, reliable electricity and access to electronic information to everyone on Earth." [4] Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains that politicians need to be guided by scientific agencies. Scientific literacy is utmost in importance. Change will not happen, "until people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works." [5] Neurologist Steven Novella also feels that scientific literacy should be the goal society should strive for, "to slowly move our species in the direction of science and reason." One way to do this is to not leave the "charlatans" unopposed. Activist skeptics should "cover whatever topics suit their interests, motivations and talents." [6] Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss writes that he is concerned that society is not asking good questions about "prevailing wisdom" and that we are not adjusting teaching methods to better train our students. [7] Astronomer David Helfand would agree that education is the key, we must "provide spam filters... students can [vet] information to make personal decisions and to contribute rationally to civil society." [8] Taking a step back and examining our goals, Scott O. Lilienfeld writes that the skeptical movement should "take a much more critical look at the success, and lack thereof, of our communication and persuasion efforts." Lilienfeld also believes that the community needs to start earlier in children's lives "before these propensities become deeply entrenched." [9]
Geologist Sharon Hill believes that in order for the skeptical community to more forward in improving scientific literacy, they need to seek out "new leaders, with new ideas and experienced professional to ditch the old ways of doing things ... shattering the cynical curmudgeonly old guy stereotype." She is skeptical that this is something that will be happening soon, and writes that planning and money may be able to repair a fractured community that is rife with in-fighting. Hill calls for a "reboot". [10] Psychologist Richard Wiseman is optimistic about the future of skepticism. The Internet has made it possible to connect with other skeptics, to share information and resources. Sites like YouTube allow the community to avoid television and publishers who in the past have felt that skepticism would not sell. Wiseman states, "more people than ever are discovering that fact is far more fascinating than fiction." [11] Philosopher Daniel Dennett writes that expertise should not be ignored, authority should mean something, and false balance should be called out. [12] Martin Bridgstock writes that the paranormal community is adapting, skeptics are forced to play "whack-a-mole" but he is optimistic, the skeptical movement is adapting as well. More women are becoming involved, and the demographics are showing a younger movement. He is also hopeful that Indian skeptics are beginning to fight against the village Godman. [13] Edzard Ernst sums up his thoughts of the skeptical movement by saying that they should prioritize targets, be open to extraordinary claims and finally "we are often too detached, abstract and polite. Our opponents tell so many lies about us that we should consider telling the truth about them." [14]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
personal opinion and personal attacks. Knock if off |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
What the heck are you all talking about? I'm not privy to whatever feud you all have with each other. How do you get anything done here if you are biting at each other? I spend my time working with new people and creating content and very little time on talk pages. Now I remember why. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Polentarian added and then edit-warred back in the jocular language from the Rinallo book about "skeptopreneurs".
This is not encyclopedic in my view. What do others think? Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I know this is likely to be rejected, but I will put it forth anyways, as a suggestion. I would suggest modelling this Wikipedia entry on how the Swedish-language Wikipedia has on the same subject. It is simple, clear, and easy to read. Not very long either. It also includes scientific skepticism as a concept as well as the skeptical movement.
Below I have posted in in italic. I have only translated the intro part and the titles of the various sections. I can translate the rest if there is any interest.
Scientific skepticism is an approach in which one questions the veracity of claims about objective reality lacking empirical evidence. Scientific skepticism should not be confused with other sketpical traditions.
In practice this means that one investigates assumed pseudoscientific and paranormal claims with the aid of scientific methods, to find evidence for or against those claims. This work is associated with the skeptical movement.
Overview ...
History ...
The skeptical movement ...
See also ...
References ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.3.98 ( talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where I was during the September move discussion (now archived at Talk:Skeptical movement/Archive 3), but if it had been a formal Requested Move discussion, I would most likely have started out opposed. The article retains much of its character as a discussion of scientific skepticism as a philosophical activity or approach and is not exclusively about the movement, though discussion of the modern skeptical movement was beginning to take over. But I would have found it hard to support a split.
The problem is much the same as the article Critical thinking, where there is a philosophical activity not very far removed from scientific skepticism or rational analysis or rational inquiry, but also a large movement dedicated to teaching critical thinking skills to students in schools (perhaps several movements). That article is something of a muddle, too.
As for the suggestion by our anonymous colleague that we follow the Swedish edition's structure, I'm afraid that's a dead letter as long as there remains this lack of consensus as exemplified by Polentarion and Hob Gadling. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the Swedish article can be viewed via Google translate
here. Please note that the {{
Expand Swedish}}
(part of {{
Expand}}
) template can be handy if we were to agree with the editor posting above: {{Expand Swedish|Vetenskaplig_skepticism|date=March 2017}}. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite early on, this article claims that roots of the movement can be found in the nineteenth century. Would it not be more accurate to say that roots of the movement can be found in the rationalism of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century? Vorbee ( talk) 17:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Some leaders of the movement, including Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett were connected to New Atheism."
Does the source say those people are "leaders of the [skeptical] movement?
I would write "Some leaders of the New Atheism movement, (Dawkins and Dennett) are connected to the skeptical movement", depending on the source. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Could we please get this article in some sensible order? Why is Polentarion allowed to ruin it with his/her weird ideas? The English-language Wikipedia is in many ways the greatest storage repository of human knowledge. It should have a sensible entry on scientific skepticism. Paleolithic Brain ( talk) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This needs a rewrite as it's incomprehensible in present form: "While skeptics perceive most topics as being fringe and less of an actual problem, some aspects and topics are being perceived as a possible danger." GenacGenac ( talk) 19:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
How about we revert this article into some previous version, and work out from there? Looking at a few of the other Wikipedia language editions on this topic (Google Translate gives you a pretty good idea), it seems noen has the same format as this one. Why shuld the English language edition be this way?
Also, to change "scientific skepticism" to "skeptical movement" is a pretty daft move if you ask me. Scientific skepticism is bigger than any organization.
What's next? Should "alternative medicine" be changed to "alternative medicine movement"? "Libertarianism" to "libertarian movement"? "Atheism" to "atheist movement"? You see pattern. Even though there are organizations working to further these causes, they are not defined by that.-- Paleolithic Brain ( talk) 21:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
There is not mention of The Skeptic Tank, one of the most influential organizations from the mid 1970s to the present, they have something like half a million web pages up and participated in the 1990s in a number of CalTech lectures. And information about James Randi is not very well offered here. Article could use some improvement. SoftwareThing ( talk) 14:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
what are "non-empirical claims"? This term is used in the opening then never defined or explained. Is this about religion? Are we afraid to say that? Is it even a true statement?
Gjxj ( talk) 12:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Justin Bieber sucks" is subjective. "
I can perceive extra-dimensional planes, but they have no impact on this plane" is unverifiable, it cannot be disproved with empirical testing.) [1] [2] [3] -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The quote dump in the 'Scientific skepticism' section clearly seems unencylopedic and should be removed per WP:NOTDIR. This isn't Wikiquote. Am i missing something? Pinging User:MarshallKe, who reverted. Stonkaments ( talk) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
A very current example of irrationalism is brewing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Myth Florida ( talk) 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
By restricting scientific evidence to findings that can be verified and falsified (and, implicitly, repeated), the description of science in "scientific skepticism" includes only one narrow type of work that scientists actually do: controlled experimentals. It precludes all observational, descriptive, and uncontrolled studies, which are undoubtedly performed by scientists and which are used as evidence by other scientists. Some of these are elaborated in the Study design article. (That article could use some expansion to include, for instance, correlation studies and naturalistic observational studies, and presently only refers to medical experiments.)
As some person points out earlier in these comments, there are many things claimed which cannot be tested, but would fall well within the realm of another study design used by actual scientists to publish actual evidence. In some cases, this is because testing would be harmful to the subjects. Scientists are usually ethically bound to avoid harming to their human subjects. In some cases, this is because the phenomenon in question is not under the scientist's control (such as naturalistic observation). In some cases, this is because there are no trained observers of the phenomenon, and the scientist is simply trying to observe trends to establish a testable hypothesis. (And sometimes, testable hypotheses are impossible, as with, for example, the tragedy of the commons.)
It just seems that for a philosophy called "scientific skepticism", said skeptics are restricting themselves to an extremely narrow range of science. It might be better to say that scientific skeptics constrain themselves to the current scientific consensus in a given field, and that the nature of these constraints can change over time as the consensus changes. A simple link to the consensus article would be sufficient to describe that it only includes the majority of scientists and that dissenting views may exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HorridRedThings ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The Perceived dangers of pseudoscience section lists the following individuals as holding views that pseudoscience is bad:
Should this be cited? Do we need evidence that these writers actually consider themselves rational/scientific skeptics, or that their reason for opposing said claims is due to their rational skepticism? HorridRedThings ( talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the template of this WikiProject to Audiophile. I don't know if the article requires any immediate attention, but interested project members may want to keep an eye on it. -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Scientific skepticism is not really skeptical from a philosophical point of view. It doesn't doubt the current scientific method and the established paradigm. From the outlook it has more to do with positivism ( Auguste Comte) rather than skepticism ( Sextus Empiricus). Anyone please explain how justified is it to call scientific skepticism "skepticism"? Wandering Courier ( talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we trim down the "See also" section?
I was surprised to find that there's no mention of, say, Phil Plait and Ben Goldacre, but there's a lot of stuff in the "See also" section and it could probably do with a good pruning. -- TS 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A skeptic, Marcello Truzzi disagreed with some of his colleages about the approach to take to extraordinary claims. He held that those who failed to remain agnostic in the face of extraordinary claims were taking on a burden of proof, and he termed them pseudoskeptics. His argument was quite a subtle one and it's not clear that he always used the term quite as subtly as that. However the modern usage of the term, which enjoys some small currency mostly amongst adherents of extraordinary claims, almost invariably refers to Truzzi's position. I've cleaned a lot of web-based junk out of the article on pseudoskepticism and little remains except Truzzi's original usage. I suggest that we consider merging the material here. Failing that (and perhaps preferably) we could merge the material to Marcello Truzzi. -- TS 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Perceived dangers of Pseudoscience" section contains this line: "Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways."
What question?
64.80.108.52 ( talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of links from the old pseudoskepticism article which I think may be useful as sources for this article.
-- TS 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Is WikiProject Rational Skepticism involvment in this article WP:POV and WPCONFLICT? Seems like it is. It seems that you have activist skeptics maintaining this article to show them in a good light.
I usually don't edit Wikipedia, but I noticed this when I saw the term "activist debunker" used on another site, and I did a Google search of Wikipedia yesterday for the term. I found the term was still in Google's cache, but removed from this site just that day. I added back the part of the article which was on that page for the past three years, to have it removed by someone whose history is clearly one of an activist debunker. It seems clearly POV and Conflict to me, and I now see this page, and it seems like it's maintained by a group that is POV. 24.209.226.121 ( talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Scientific skepticism is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.
Pseudoskepticism is making negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.
The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
93.86.201.173 ( talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I know Verbal, you don't think my changes are any good. Please explain. Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not playing games Blippy, just justify your edit or drop it. It's what we all have to do when challenged. Please stay on topic and try not to make this personal. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, from BURDEN - part of WP:V. You added uncited material (you even added the cn tag). Verbal chat 09:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Blippy, I removed your edit because it seemed to be largely cosmetic in nature and the sole material addition to the article was tagged "citation needed" by you yourself. We shouldn't deliberately add material that we cannot source to articles, because that's against our policy on verifiability. Please get a source for your addition.
On the cosmetic changes you made, I don't think they added anything and they certainly didn't add to readability. -- TS 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if some of these improvements are still warranted, as I hit an ( edit conflict) with TS. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
References
This is partially an appeal for assistance. I do not normally edit in this area however I have become interested in this recently. it appears to me that there are those who attach themselves to skepticism with an unscientific belief in a particular viewpoint. I.e. X does not accord with my scientific world view therefore it is pseudoscience therefore it must be opposed, rather than approaching a topic with scientific agnosticism.
To me this entirely misses the point, it attempts to fix science as a finalised set of known things, it is a belief that we know all there is to be known. Rather than rational skepticism it is irrational skepticism.
I find no mention of this nor any place in which what should be covered by scientific/rational skepticism is or could be discussed. Daffodillman ( talk) 06:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why somebody has removed the link to Skeptic Links, citing WP:EL. Seems an entirely appropriate and useful link to me.
WP:EL actually says
Links to be considered
3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations.
Annamonckton ( talk) 08:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We can make this distinction? If so how so, if not why not? Are S. S. better than P. S.? Hmmmmmmmmmm. ... I'm highly skeptical about the distinction! -- Ludvikus ( talk) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A "professional scientist" is someone who works as a scientist. A "skeptic" in the sense of this page can be a lay person. Also, clearly not all scientists, professional or not, are skeptics. Take Francis_Collins_(geneticist), not a "skeptic", but hightly regarded scientist. Example of a well known "skeptic": Penn Jillette, not a scientist. 217.171.129.68 ( talk) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC) edited for typo: 217.171.129.68 ( talk) 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I recommend at least 3 headings for this article. Each heading has to do with distinguishing Scientiffic Skepticism from a noted similar yet separate counterpart. Here, I abbreviate Scientiffic Skepticism as "SSk" and I add abbreviations next to the "counterpart" to separate Ssk from, next to the title. Just temporary abbreviations.
IE: The definition of ssk can work in the format: "Ssk is different from PK because (blabla). . . Ssk is different from and different from gs because (blabla) . . . Ssk is different from . . .
(1) *Philosophical Skepticism. (PK)
Ssk is different from PK because PK challenges the theory of knowledge rather than the theory of evidence. Whereas PK can challenge the theory of inductive reasoning and measurement, Ssk does not. Ssk can only challenge the *verifiability and *plausability of evidence, not its purpose.
(2) *general science (gs)
Ssk is different from gs because gs looks for a common *best theory, whereas Ssk does not necessarily accept any theory as plausible.
(3) *Pseudoscience (ps)
Ssk is different from Ps because it will argue the coercive nature of a claim rather than make a claim itself. (Eg: Ssk will argue why naysayers of global warming are oilmoney-conglomorates, or why global warming is argued by directionless peaceniks, rather than list evidence for only one Thesis [global warming] or an antithesis [no global warming])
OBJECTIVES of Ssk
The main objective of Ssk is to weed out ps from all gs. Ssk does not aim to challenge the melting pot where new frontiers are made, but to challenge non-scientiffic agendas from creeping up where new groundwork has been laid. gs paves the way through frontiers, Ssk is intended to clean up the fine lines behind it where ps can creep up. Some of its guidelines . . .
-All religious views associated with science is pseudoscience. -All research made to support a political agenda is pseudoscience. -(Nearly?) all fallacious arguments are pseudoscience. -All corporate funded research has to make account regarding the stakes of the funders toward one outcome of the research.
Gaiaguerrilla ( talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure this only applies to the routine debunking of pseudoscience, and not to mainstream ideas?
The above quote would seem to apply to widely accepted theories such as AGW. There's a controversy over whether Mann's hockey stick graph was ever subjected to enough checking by other scientists. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journalsApplication of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here [5]. PPdd ( talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've started a History subsection and added an entry for one of the first scientists credited with helping establish a tradition of skepticism in science. Please feel free to add more examples, particularly from European history. This page was a little skimpy for such a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.21.141 ( talk) 12:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding an unofficial second opinion agreeing with Dougweller's removal of these paragraphs. They seemed to come out of nowhere and seriously derailed the article. The claims made would also need to be reliably sourced instead of being the personal opinion of the editor adding them. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I've seen " scientific skepticism" used more broadly than in the context of rejecting fringe claims or debunking pseudoscience. It would seem to be a more general approach than the position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence (note that the latter link goes to Empirical research.
The issue is typically whether the work of a particular scientist or scientific team is satisfactory to other scientists. For many scientists, publication of results in a peer-reviewed journal is the beginning, not the completion, of the process whereby a new scientific discovery is made and shared with the world. In many cases, work that has been published is then checked and even challenged, particularly when contrary results are also published. Perhaps this is more common in the social sciences and life sciences than in the hard sciences where the term "competing studies" is frequently found.
Typically, other scientists need months or years to have a chance to verify with their own studies or experiments that a particular claim "holds water". So I'd like to suggest that we enlarge the scope of this article to include this idea. Particularly, we need a section on replication of results which is more than a redirect to " Experiment". == Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Three longish cquotes in the lead is a bit much. I've chopped 'em as WP is not a collection of quotes. Summarize what they are about rather than just collect your favorite quotes. Vsmith ( talk) 18:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Carl Sagan's image is clearly relevant to this article. I am restoring it. -- Greenmaven ( talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "Extraordinary claims" redirects here. The text asserts that "...extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity".
I see two issues here. One is that the phrase "Extraordinary claims" is not defined here, nor is it referenced to who made the statement, nor is the phrase "extraordinary evidence" defined. (A reference to Sagan might be appropriate.)
The second is that "extraordinary evidence" is in fact precisely the amount of evidence that is required to support a standard scientific claim. What this means is that for any scientific theory to be accepted, really a lot of extraordinary evidence must be gathered. A little thought on this statement shows it is absolutely true. No theory is really accepted by scientists until quite a lot of work has been put into defining, validating, and duplicating evidence to support it. Thus "extraordinary" evidence by definition. So if I tell you that beer is wet, only ordinary evidence is required. If I tell you that E=MC squared -- you want extraordinary evidence -- and a lot of effort was in fact spent to gather that evidence to prove that equation!
So in fact it is not just "extraordinary claims" that require "extraordinary evidence" -- it is any scientific hypothesis that wants to be considered a theory that requires "extraordinary evidence". And in that sense, any new theory before it becomes accepted by the scientific establishment is in fact an extraordinary claim. E=MC squared was at one time an extraordinary claim. So the statement as it exists here in this article is reasonable -- but some context would be good. SunSw0rd ( talk) 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If proper sources can be found, it ought to be explicitly pointed out which forms of academic research scientific skepticism does not endorse, such as, perhaps, the historical method, research in the humanities, parts of what it normally termed the social sciences, and more. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No, that is an incorrect invoking of IAR. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This article has several issues. There is no use adding any contributions somewhat critical to scientific skepticism to the article as they are promptly removed by adherents of the movement; instead, I provide a list:
... because that article has no direct connection to this topic. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't based on dictionary definitions but the concepts; the translations are irrelevant. The issue with your wikilinks is that they aren't about their relationship to scientific skepticism. The subject of this article. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Kaleidoscope of different colours - there are goofballs who believe in the paranormal while at the same time they claim to be skeptics. For example there's Susan Blackmore who holds important positions in both the world of parapsychology and skepticism (of course, she's plainly deluded) Dickie birdie ( talk) 10:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"Scientific skepticism ( also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility" This should be modified, because skeptics quite often undertake empirical research themselves. Also because skeptics can and do accept claims that are not reproducible (Big Bang, human evolution, the Holocaust). Perhaps the Skeptic Dictionary entry can help with ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.84.46 ( talk) 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The line that states skeptics essentially reject qualitative research needs a citation. I have looked by googling "skeptic qualitative research" (without quotes). The best I've found so far is a blog post from Skepchick who refers to "...some members of the skeptic community that over-depend on quantitative data and further seek to minimize the usefulness of qualitative data". Note that even that post doesn't go as far as saying those skeptics outright reject qualitative research.
It may be that someone of great imprortance to the ideas of scienctific skepticism has rejected qualitative research. However I have not yet been able to find this stated anywhere. And even if it were, I think you'd need some evidence that this is true of skeptics in general.
I think the problem with the statement (that skeptics reject qualitative research) possibly stems from trying to equate Scientific Skepticism closely with Positivism. While it may be true that skepticism tends towards Positivism (a citation would be useful though) they do differ substantially.
Therefore I'd think it helpful if anyone can find a good source that either confirms or rejects the statement. If no source is forthcoming, I'd suggest removing the statement. Britskep ( talk) 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost every different skeptical outlet has a particular definition of what skepticism means. This Wikipedia entry should try to do so if possible, given the extensive disagreement about what exactly (scientific) skepticism is. Currently is lacks such a definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.84.46 ( talk) 19:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In "About the term and its scope", we find this quotation: "A daughter of empiricism, scientific skepticism fundamentally rejects Platonic realism." I suggest that any reference to Platonic realism be removed for the following reasons:
He preferred the perfection of these mathematical abstractions to the imperfections of everyday life. He believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waist their time observing the stars and planets; it was better, he believed, just to think about them.
Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment, that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians.
Plato's unease with the world as revealed by our senses was to dominate and stifle Western philosophy. ... Their influence has significantly set back the Human endeavour.— Sagan, Cosmos, ep. 7
I have removed the sentence in question. I welcome oppposing views, but so far, we only have a quote from Sagan saying he didn't like one part of Plato's ethos, but that criticism doesn't address Platonic realism per se, only the position that the universals are more important than phenomena. That position is distinct from Platonic realism, so the "fundamentally rejects" claim remains unsupported. Flies 1 ( talk) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As Dkriegls correctly pointed out, simply citing Carl Sagan's books does not prove he was the first to use the term "scientific skepticism". In fact, it's easily refuted with a simply search in Google Books, that shows the combination of the words "scientific" and "skepticism" can be traced back to at least the 19th century. A preliminary reading of some of the contexts in which the term can be found seems to indicate it did not necessarily carry the same meaning as today (it mainly comes up in discussion about religion, and seems to be about the apparent unwillingness of scientists to take Christian claims on faith), but that is also just my own original research. If anyone knows an article that documents the etymology of "scientific skepticism" for us, and that we can quote, that would be much appreciated. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"Used or promoted by Carl Sagan, Steven Novella and others, the phrase “scientific skepticism” as a descriptor or synonym for the skeptical movement is relatively recent. It has been widely adopted as a means of differentiating the niche literature of science-based, investigative skeptical critique of paranormal and fringe science claims—often called simply “skepticism”—from other types of doubt and from other uses of the word “skeptic” (such as fringe science “climate change skeptics”). However, the phrase “scientific skepticism” predates this current use within movement skepticism, and has at least one other meaning: “the attitude of constructive doubt appropriate for scientific practice”—a related but distinct meaning which can lead to confusion. In the context of this essay, I will use “scientific skepticism” as a synonym for science-based critique of paranormal and fringe science claims, for the literature that grew out of that critical practice, or for the movement that grew up around that practice."
PS: It's unfortunate that Loxton does not specify what he means by 'relatively recent'. Does he mean Sagan's 1985 reference, earlier or later? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The main point of this article is that we ought to be skeptical about the paranormal - or maybe medical quackery. I thought it should focus a lot more on the idea that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim; and on the "continual questioning of ideas and results is a means of overturning long-held assumptions and uncovering new ideas" that are true. In other words, as a check on orthodoxy and bias. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Polentarion, i like a lot of what you seem to be adding with your recent edits although i bid you to be careful of any appearance of edit warring due to the fact that the lede edit has gone back and forth now one time, so please be careful and come to discuss before editing any more the lede. There is much good effort to your large effort there, and i hope it can all be discussed well and carefully and in a very civil way here. SageRad ( talk) 12:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess Sagerad refers to the use of scientism as a language of faith (Hammer 2001:201f, quoted several times in the papers in question). Point is, I don't see the revert as being justified - page references are included and the stuff is available per google books. But I won't revert again and will be patient for the sake of consent. Polentarion
Talk
13:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC) PS.: I did some copyedits and I am adding some page references.
The previously given definitions are partially based on blogs or creed-like. They mainly are being based one the likes of Kurtz, will say internal sources, which try to define "new scepticism" as a method based on the ancient greek traditions and embracing the scientific method. As Skeptic magazine puts it, an ancient and noble public service tradition. I doubt they warrant an article different from the one about the movement. The movement is real and has been described by third party scholarly sources. Daniel Loxton has been claimed as "historian", which is bunk, but his definition is the most useful so far. Polentarion Talk 10:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Rational inquiry currently redirects to scientific skepticism. I think the redirect should be the other way around as there are four times as many hits for "rational inquiry" on google than "scientific skepticism". Rational inquiry describes more what this article is mainly about, people trying to use the scientific method and in particular the tool of scientific skepticism to debunk pseudoscience and trying to get more rational decisions in everyday life. Scientific skepticism itself can then be used to describe skepticism as used in the scientific method and have a hat pointing to rational inquiry. Does anyone have objections? Dmcq ( talk) 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I assume that Howard Sankey's 2016 "Scientific Realism and the Rationality of Science" could be helpful to combine both approaches. But as said, the movement merits its own article. Why not split? Polentarion Talk 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
feel free to edit that list. Perceived dangers of pseudoscience is about pseudoscience, the see also is way too long, but maybe you find something there. That said, the easy thing is extract the content in question to Rational inquiry and to move the main part here to Sceptical movement. Rational inquiry should contain the edit history already. Polentarion Talk 15:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(note: this heading was added in arrears by P William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC))
Dmcq, I ask for a move to sceptical movement, already in 2014. If you believe that Rational inquiry is a separate topic, write it, so far about splitting. I see Rational inquiry as method of modern sceptics as being covered already in Debunking and a myriad of articles about different aspects of the scientific method. That said, method is being covered here as well in
The main content is in so far about people and organizations, will say the movement, not about method. If you really feel that a larger part of the article belongs to rational inquiry or anywhere else, expand the list accordingly. Polentarion Talk 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this talk page warrants an archive. OK? Polentarion Talk 16:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, so where's the move discussion then? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"The movement formed due to controversies between established modern medicine and alternative therapies and lay healers, as well as to deal with spiritualism and paranormal phenomena"
I doubt that. Usually Comité Para (1947) is said to be the first such organization, and alternative medicine was not one of its focuses.
I cannot find the quote anywhere on the net, and I suspect it is taken out of context, misattributed, or otherwise wrong. I'd like to see the full quote where the books (sources 1 and 2) say that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Kim Schlotmanns 2014 "Ockhams Rasiermesser in der Skeptikerbewegung" (Occams Razor in the sceptical movement) sounds like an interesting work both on an important tool claimed by sceptics and its role in the sceptical movement. It is based on a German Bachelor's thesis. I check for further publications. Polentarion Talk 12:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the following sections need some improvement
Point is, "examples" deals with debunking. Debunking is an important ritual in the trade and as well notoriously futile. As pointed out in the astrology example, astrology has been debunked since ages - but to no avail. Hammer provides some points why - e.g. the focus on science and less on humanities. If you want to explain the ongoing success of astrology, you need too refer to its role as a ritualized divination and the relationship between clients and astrologers or the fun of reading a horoscope in a magazine. Both the Pseudoskepticism and the dangers of pseudoscience do not belong here. I suggest to cut them down to a mere link in the plain text or the overview. Polentarion Talk 13:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That section sounds like a merger of a fanzine with an press release. Its been claimed that more women take part but the main issue - the movement being dominated by nerdy male tekkie buffs with no idea of the humanities - has been deleted, not addressed. That said, the article is in danger of getting back into fandom. Polentarion Talk 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The membership of the movement is predominantly male and often has a background in the natural sciences and engineering. There is a significant lower ratio of female members and as well the humanities and social sciences have a lower place. An important difference is the one between wet and dry sceptic, the latter prefering to debunk paranormal claims, the former interested in actual examination of such phenomena.. [1] The early controversy between Kurtz and Truzzi in the USA (in Germany, a similar conflict arised around GWUP founding member Edgar Wunder) resulted in a dominance of the dry sceptics.
Hi there. The first version contained a source. The rest, e.g. about the predominantly male tekkie background is a obvious, sourcing is already provided in the article, e.g. Hess respectively Dyrendal and Hammer and Ciscop itself. The skepchick scandal already got a separate article, Rebecca Watson. That said, I ask to restore the content and I will provide separate sourcing if required. Polentarion Talk 22:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the above that is UNDUE and PROMO; there is potentially useful content here but it needs to be reworked. Copied here, per WP:PRESERVE.
At the fortieth anniversary of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, editor Kendrick Frazier asked "scientists and skeptics who have come to prominence ... in the last twenty years" their thoughts on scientific skepticism. The responses received from the nineteen respondents were varied but fell into two categories "Issues and Odysseys in Science and Skepticism". [2] The "Odysseys" reflects the various paths they found to scientific skepticism. [3]
Science educator Bill Nye writes that the "overwhelming concern is human-caused global climate change." He states that we are already behind schedule as society has been "hoodwinked by climate change deniers, who suggest that 30,000 scientists are involved in a worldwide conspiracy. Nye wants society to promote science policies to "provide clean water, reliable electricity and access to electronic information to everyone on Earth." [4] Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains that politicians need to be guided by scientific agencies. Scientific literacy is utmost in importance. Change will not happen, "until people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works." [5] Neurologist Steven Novella also feels that scientific literacy should be the goal society should strive for, "to slowly move our species in the direction of science and reason." One way to do this is to not leave the "charlatans" unopposed. Activist skeptics should "cover whatever topics suit their interests, motivations and talents." [6] Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss writes that he is concerned that society is not asking good questions about "prevailing wisdom" and that we are not adjusting teaching methods to better train our students. [7] Astronomer David Helfand would agree that education is the key, we must "provide spam filters... students can [vet] information to make personal decisions and to contribute rationally to civil society." [8] Taking a step back and examining our goals, Scott O. Lilienfeld writes that the skeptical movement should "take a much more critical look at the success, and lack thereof, of our communication and persuasion efforts." Lilienfeld also believes that the community needs to start earlier in children's lives "before these propensities become deeply entrenched." [9]
Geologist Sharon Hill believes that in order for the skeptical community to more forward in improving scientific literacy, they need to seek out "new leaders, with new ideas and experienced professional to ditch the old ways of doing things ... shattering the cynical curmudgeonly old guy stereotype." She is skeptical that this is something that will be happening soon, and writes that planning and money may be able to repair a fractured community that is rife with in-fighting. Hill calls for a "reboot". [10] Psychologist Richard Wiseman is optimistic about the future of skepticism. The Internet has made it possible to connect with other skeptics, to share information and resources. Sites like YouTube allow the community to avoid television and publishers who in the past have felt that skepticism would not sell. Wiseman states, "more people than ever are discovering that fact is far more fascinating than fiction." [11] Philosopher Daniel Dennett writes that expertise should not be ignored, authority should mean something, and false balance should be called out. [12] Martin Bridgstock writes that the paranormal community is adapting, skeptics are forced to play "whack-a-mole" but he is optimistic, the skeptical movement is adapting as well. More women are becoming involved, and the demographics are showing a younger movement. He is also hopeful that Indian skeptics are beginning to fight against the village Godman. [13] Edzard Ernst sums up his thoughts of the skeptical movement by saying that they should prioritize targets, be open to extraordinary claims and finally "we are often too detached, abstract and polite. Our opponents tell so many lies about us that we should consider telling the truth about them." [14]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 22:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
personal opinion and personal attacks. Knock if off |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
What the heck are you all talking about? I'm not privy to whatever feud you all have with each other. How do you get anything done here if you are biting at each other? I spend my time working with new people and creating content and very little time on talk pages. Now I remember why. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Polentarian added and then edit-warred back in the jocular language from the Rinallo book about "skeptopreneurs".
This is not encyclopedic in my view. What do others think? Jytdog ( talk) 01:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I know this is likely to be rejected, but I will put it forth anyways, as a suggestion. I would suggest modelling this Wikipedia entry on how the Swedish-language Wikipedia has on the same subject. It is simple, clear, and easy to read. Not very long either. It also includes scientific skepticism as a concept as well as the skeptical movement.
Below I have posted in in italic. I have only translated the intro part and the titles of the various sections. I can translate the rest if there is any interest.
Scientific skepticism is an approach in which one questions the veracity of claims about objective reality lacking empirical evidence. Scientific skepticism should not be confused with other sketpical traditions.
In practice this means that one investigates assumed pseudoscientific and paranormal claims with the aid of scientific methods, to find evidence for or against those claims. This work is associated with the skeptical movement.
Overview ...
History ...
The skeptical movement ...
See also ...
References ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.3.98 ( talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where I was during the September move discussion (now archived at Talk:Skeptical movement/Archive 3), but if it had been a formal Requested Move discussion, I would most likely have started out opposed. The article retains much of its character as a discussion of scientific skepticism as a philosophical activity or approach and is not exclusively about the movement, though discussion of the modern skeptical movement was beginning to take over. But I would have found it hard to support a split.
The problem is much the same as the article Critical thinking, where there is a philosophical activity not very far removed from scientific skepticism or rational analysis or rational inquiry, but also a large movement dedicated to teaching critical thinking skills to students in schools (perhaps several movements). That article is something of a muddle, too.
As for the suggestion by our anonymous colleague that we follow the Swedish edition's structure, I'm afraid that's a dead letter as long as there remains this lack of consensus as exemplified by Polentarion and Hob Gadling. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the Swedish article can be viewed via Google translate
here. Please note that the {{
Expand Swedish}}
(part of {{
Expand}}
) template can be handy if we were to agree with the editor posting above: {{Expand Swedish|Vetenskaplig_skepticism|date=March 2017}}. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite early on, this article claims that roots of the movement can be found in the nineteenth century. Would it not be more accurate to say that roots of the movement can be found in the rationalism of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century? Vorbee ( talk) 17:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Some leaders of the movement, including Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett were connected to New Atheism."
Does the source say those people are "leaders of the [skeptical] movement?
I would write "Some leaders of the New Atheism movement, (Dawkins and Dennett) are connected to the skeptical movement", depending on the source. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Could we please get this article in some sensible order? Why is Polentarion allowed to ruin it with his/her weird ideas? The English-language Wikipedia is in many ways the greatest storage repository of human knowledge. It should have a sensible entry on scientific skepticism. Paleolithic Brain ( talk) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This needs a rewrite as it's incomprehensible in present form: "While skeptics perceive most topics as being fringe and less of an actual problem, some aspects and topics are being perceived as a possible danger." GenacGenac ( talk) 19:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
How about we revert this article into some previous version, and work out from there? Looking at a few of the other Wikipedia language editions on this topic (Google Translate gives you a pretty good idea), it seems noen has the same format as this one. Why shuld the English language edition be this way?
Also, to change "scientific skepticism" to "skeptical movement" is a pretty daft move if you ask me. Scientific skepticism is bigger than any organization.
What's next? Should "alternative medicine" be changed to "alternative medicine movement"? "Libertarianism" to "libertarian movement"? "Atheism" to "atheist movement"? You see pattern. Even though there are organizations working to further these causes, they are not defined by that.-- Paleolithic Brain ( talk) 21:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
There is not mention of The Skeptic Tank, one of the most influential organizations from the mid 1970s to the present, they have something like half a million web pages up and participated in the 1990s in a number of CalTech lectures. And information about James Randi is not very well offered here. Article could use some improvement. SoftwareThing ( talk) 14:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
what are "non-empirical claims"? This term is used in the opening then never defined or explained. Is this about religion? Are we afraid to say that? Is it even a true statement?
Gjxj ( talk) 12:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Justin Bieber sucks" is subjective. "
I can perceive extra-dimensional planes, but they have no impact on this plane" is unverifiable, it cannot be disproved with empirical testing.) [1] [2] [3] -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The quote dump in the 'Scientific skepticism' section clearly seems unencylopedic and should be removed per WP:NOTDIR. This isn't Wikiquote. Am i missing something? Pinging User:MarshallKe, who reverted. Stonkaments ( talk) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)