Talk:Scientific skepticism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Modern Miracle Making

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)

Distinguish within science

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)

Cited individuals - says who?

The Perceived dangers of pseudoscience section lists the following individuals as holding views that pseudoscience is bad:

• Plato
• Bertrand Russell
• James Randi
• Richard Dawkins
• "some skeptics" (weasel words?)

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)

Added Audiophile

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)

Is it really skepticism?

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)

The use of skepticism in the name "scientific skepticism" refers to the skeptical attitude that researchers in this area take towards claims of the paranormal (and towards other scientific claims). Hence, skepticism is a perfectly reasonable name I.M.O. However, my opinion here is irrelevant, since wikipedia users are not the ones who have coined the term "scientific skepticism", but rather are using the term in the usage coined by others (see for example, here [1]). As such, whether or not you find the term appropriate or not a valid basis for complaint, so long as the usage on wikipedia reflects common usage, which it does seem to. Edhubbard (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it wasn't a complaint about the article title, just seeking a reasonable explanation. Even if I disagreed with the title I wouldn't challenge how Wikipedia reflects common usage. Regards. Wandering Courier (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"See also" section is a bit big

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)

Marcello Truzzi: a proposed merge for pseudoskepticism

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)

I agree with the merge. It should be mentioned here, as a disparaging term dreamed up by Truzzi and that others have jumped upon to try to falsely claim that only believers in wild claims are true skeptics. It really deserves no more space than a couple of sentences. Something like the first sentence of the current article, with the source as there, followed by a statement from some skeptical source pointing out that it's just been used as an attack, or that of course people come to conclusions after evidence comes in, that's not a bad thing. Some major reliable source I'm sure has published something like that we could use as a cite for that. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support per above. NJGW (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• DreamGuy,I noted your later comment on talk:pseudoskepticism [2] to the effect that the Marcello Truzzi article already has material that "covers this topic quite admirably, so this article should just redirect to that one." I'm leaning towards that opinion myself. Truzzi's point (people who assert a negative but dodge the burden of proof) has often been conflated with the dislike of "debunkers" or skeptical investigators in general, who obviously aren't the kind of people to profess even to a provisional belief that unidentified flying object sightings are evidence of life on other planets, or paranormal aliens. While Truzzi had a point as far as it goes, I don't think the latter is a problem of skepticism so much as unrealistic expectations by the believer in fringe theories and pseudoscience. For that reason I think Truzzi's problems with his fellow skeptics, in the context of CSICOP and Zetetic Scholar, probably belong in the article on the man. --TS 12:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, there's been nearly a week for comments and so I'll go ahead with a merge of Pseudoskepticism to Marcello Truzzi. It can always be reverted if it doesn't work out. --TS 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• A User:Wjbeaty has described the merge as "improper" and "discussion-free". I will ask him to come and discuss it here. --TS 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• No The article as it is now (restored) is much better and sourced. TS' editing is unsourced and was not good prose and does not aid anyone in trying to understand the term. Editing such as this is detrimental to wikipedia. The term is very helpful for those who subscribe to a scientific worldview that are more in direction of Pyrrhonism. Remember, this is an international project and scientific skepticism in the edutainment radical form popular in the US is not international. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very vauge. The issue is acutally in the notability of the term, and whether it is even notable at all outside of an article about Truzzi. The arguments for this are laid out at talk:Pseudoskepticism, so if there's something specific you'd like to discuss feel free. Just calling TS's edits detrimental is not an argument. NJGW (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the diff between the two versions, and one is clearly better than the other. Read the AfD on the notability and it was established. The citations in the current article also establishes notability, so it is not weird if you think it was non-notable if you only read the TS version. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the list of issues with the article (quoting TS):

• Some of it is an essay. For instance the much of the section "Pseudo-skepticism and scientific method" is unreferenced and indeed seems to be a synthesis of uncited external sources.
• The section "Contemporary usage" just seems to be an assorted set of quotes most likely gleaned from googling.
• The main problem here is that a succession of editors have simply jumped in and added descriptions of their favorite primary sources without regard to weight.

In the end the article was redirected (after 3 weeks of no suggestions to do otherwise) because it seemed unlikely that it could be framed as anything more than Truzzi's concept. The other usages, as TS points out, are simply in passing, and not in terms of a concrete concept, as in Truzzi's case. Perhaps the thing to do is to stub the article and see how it can be rebuilt... but I suspect if we follow wp:UNDUE (which would basically throw out any passing usages of the term) that it will always end up as Truzzi's concept, which isn't notable outside of Truzzi's world... and not notable enough for an article of it's own. This can all be covered at Marcello Truzzi, but there's not enough meat for it to stand on it's own. NJGW (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly urge all to read the version prior to my cleanup, and the discussion page during which I discussed the cleanup as I carried it out. The policies we use at Wikipedia are neutral point of view (with attention to due weight) and verifiability. I removed the Beaty reference because his views are on the fringe. Wherever Beaty's views belong, they do not belong on the lead section about pseudoskepticism. The section "contemporary usage" seemed just to be the result of somebody googling quotes. Stuff from assorted websites does not belong on Wikipedia. In the end, all that remains really, is that Truzzi wrote an article in Zetetic Scholar in which he said that skeptics who make assertions but do not assume the burden of proof, but still want to be called skeptics, are pseudoskeptics. It was just that and nothing more--a personal critique of his fellow skeptics. When people use the term pseudoskepticism nowadays, they are borrowing Truzzi's usage. This is why I think the subject belongs on Marcello Truzzi. --TS 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Using [[3]] as reference. I think it should talk for itself, but first of all it proves without doubt that other people than Truzzi uses the term and the term has no longer anything to do with Truzzi. Second, it contains information on the topic not present on the Truzzi page. Truzzi's usage is more in line with his own zeteticism. A stub would be better, but there's already tons of RS material cut in the last TS version. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, reading more critically I agree the Beaty (amongst other) definition can be put further down in their own section after Truzzi's. It is not just a term, but also a phenomena that those who are interested in fringe science (either by hobby or sociology) have to deal with, since most vocal critics of fringe science are lay men who do not know the subtleties of philosophy of science or simply subscribe to a different philosophy alltogether. But it is removing the article alltogether and reducing it to a single paragraph in the Truzzi article I am completely against. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a paragraph, but a well fleshed out section. As its own article though, it is a neologism. The relevant guideline states that sources should be about the term, not just mention it. Truzzi has material about pseudoskepticism (about half the article is based on this one source), but otherwise we only have a non-wp:RS source (suppressedscience.net) with an article refering to Truzzi. All the rest simply use the term in passing, and could be moved to an wp:In popular culture section. NJGW (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested merging it because, when all's said and done, there was very little to write about. Truzzi's focus was very tight in that article, bearing specifically on failure to shoulder the burden of proof. He gave a specific example:

Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.

It's important in an encyclopedia to describe ideas at an appropriate level of detail. This is a very simple idea, and one that has for the most part remained associated with Truzzi, and so I think it would be hard to write more than a paragraph or two about it, properly sourced. --TS 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the sad part. Previously Zetetic Scholar and Zeteticism has been removed after very hostile editing and a lot of hard-to-find information was lost in the process. The idea can't be very simple since I see people failing to get it and construing false conflicts around it. The fact is that the article already contains useful references for further inquiry into the term. You removing all the relevant part that Truzzi wrote about it actually made it nigh impossible to understand what the term means. Your above citation is not even close. I tried removing the unneccessary passing uses, but I found that they all actually discussed what pseudoskepticism entails, and that is interesting to the article. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some brave editing removing the outright wrong claims and the less interesting ones -- although on review it seems there's one too many removed. Also, keep in mind that the article was originally about pathologic skepticism. Problem is that the direction suggested here is to reduce all articles on pathologic critique (and seeing it is removed in this article about scientific skepticism) into a single paragraph on Truzzi (seeing that patohologic skepticism already redirects there). I don't know how to edit redirections, but keep this in mind. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking through what remains in "contemporary usage", there's

• Hufford who doesn't use the term 'pseudoskepticism' (therefore it's wp:SYN to keep him there),

• Leiter who uses the term in passing in re to organized skepticism,

• Meynell who uses it for those who refuse to hear evidence for phenomenon they don't believe in,

• Kluft who uses the term for "harsh and invidious skepticism", and

• Emery who uses the term for CD-encyclopedia articles which aren't skeptical enough.

These do not expand on the supposed topic of the article, and even show that the term is very poorly defined when straying from Truzzi. The examples in "other usages" are completely unhelpful as there is no context given, and they are truly instances of the term (poetically?) dropped in passing. NJGW (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an side-effect from the article originally being about pathological skepticism. I reframed the article in order to broaden the coverage, so that should cover Hufford. And organized skepticism is much of the "problem" with pathological skepticism; Truzzi was after all fed up with exactly that when he coined the term. Kluft's explanation is also in line with Truzzi's definition. Emery is completely wrong indeed - very naughty mis-citing loss of context that. I re-added the Blackmore cite again, just for reference. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What question?

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)

Sources

This is a list of links from the old pseudoskepticism article which I think may be useful as sources for this article.

• Truzzi, Marcello, "On Some Unfair Practices towards Claims of the Paranormal". Oxymoron, 1998
• Drasin, Daniel, "Zen and the Art of Debunkery". aol.com, 1997.
• Mooney, Chris, "Abuses of Skepticism : Doubting is a powerful tool, but it can definitely be taken too far". CSICOP, December, 2003.
• Haack, Susan, "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism". CSICOP, December 1997.
• Hall, Stephanie A. "Folklore and the Rise of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics" Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Folkore Society
• Sofka, Michael D., "Myths of Skepticism". ISUNY, March, 2002.
• Hyman, Ray, "Proper Criticism". (csicop.org)
• Martin, Brian, "Strategies for dissenting scientists". Society for Scientific Exploration. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12 No 4. 1998. (PDF)
• Baez, John, "The crackpot index : Method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.".
• Sarma, Amardeo, Misguided Stigmatization of "Organized Skepticism"

--TS 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Rational Skepticism and WP:CONFLICT

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)

Based upon your confusion about the WP:NPOV policy and lack of familiarity with the goals of the Rational Skepticism Wikiproject, perhaps it'd be best for you to either take the time to educate yourself before posting here or not post here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refrain from biting newbies and explain to him how he is wrong. Unomi (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He's not likely a newbie, and a firm reminder that people should read policies before making claims about them isn't biting. It's already been explained to him on other articles where he made this exact same ridiculous argument, but because you insist: So if you create a Wikiproject to gather people interested in editing articles about, say, lions, if you go then and actually edit articles about lions, is that a WP:POV and WP:CONFLICT? Of course not! The mere suggestion that anyone interested in rational skepticism must be pushing a POV is a massive violation of WP:AGF. And of course both of you would already know that if you thought about it or read our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's too damn hard. 93.86.201.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

sky is blue ... well, most of the day time

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)

This is an article talk page, not a place to advance a POV. Pseudosckepticism is a made up word, and for it to have any relevancy you would have to insist that the people who come to conclusions haven't filled their own burden of proof, when most cases where people accuse people of being "pseudoskeptics" the burden of proof actually has been fulfilled, and quite dramatically, but the opponents refuse to believe it because they'd rather continue to believe in things the evidence shows is wrong than actually admit they were wrong. But the main point here is that this is a place to discuss an article, not to engage is pseudophilosophical debate. If your goal here is to advance your own opinion, which from your edit history appears to be the case, please be aware that that goal is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for and trying to do so is a direct violation of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

i will respond only to arguments you made, and not other stuff. 1) every word is a made up word. 2) your WP:OR about the merit of the word and concept is pointless. WP:V should be consulted here. you are getting into debate to push your POV, not me. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

is there anyone else who doesn't understand the relation between 4 statements above, and their respective articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.201.173 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits that add nothing whatsoever of value to the article

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)

Please explain why you think the changes should be incorporated. I think your changes unbalanced the article. Verbal chat 08:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In what way/s? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Your behaviour is unbecoming, please just justify the edit and we can decide if it has merit, on a compromise improved wording, or to leave it how it was. As it is, it seems the title of this thread, written by you (Edits that add nothing whatsoever of value to the article) correctly sums up the edit you made. Verbal chat 08:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN relates to providing sources. Why did you revert, specifically? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:07, 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)

Suggestion: State the problem with the current text, and why your edit addresses this problem and in what other ways it improves the article. Verbal chat 09:24, 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)

It also added some errors. Here is an improved version of Blippy's text:

Skeptics adopt an approach to claims that are strange or unusual and advocate maintaining a doubtful attitude rather than one of acceptance or belief, pending provision of conclusive evidence. For example, skeptics generally regard belief in extra-terrestrial UFOs and psychic powers as misguided, because no empirical evidence supports the existence of such phenomena. The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that to release another person from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing.

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)

I've integrated a few of the above changes into the current text, and I now think the current text is the best of all so far. Verbal chat 12:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's okay as far as it goes, but I think there is a serious problem when one refers to "skeptics". Scientific skepticism may be a movement, but it's also a technique practised in science. To refer to "skeptics" in the above suggests that the viewpoint of skepticism is limited to self-identified skeptics, a bit like saying "scientists regard the color blue as being of higher wavelength than red." In practice just about everybody says the same thing. The same goes for general skepticism of extraordinary claims such as Martians and paranormal beings from other dimensions. These are mainstream views and should not be misrepresented as the views of a small and obscure cadre. --TS 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that they are cosmetic changes. There is a presumption that 'strange or unusual claims' are self evident. This is not the case. It is the skeptic who is describing them as such, so we should attribute it accordingly. Besides which, it is also inaccurate because skeptics often hold views that others might consider strange or unusual - say the non-existence of minds for instance. There is also a problem with current wording that says there is no empirical evidence for UFO's or psychics. We don't need to buy in to such disputes, which is avoided with my wording. And the whole Plato thing seems quite unusual! Setting up Plato as a pin-up boy for skeptics is a nonsense - firstly it is OR and should be attributed to a secondary source, second it's appalling puffery to suggest skeptics are being noble and releasing people from ignorance, and thirdly Plato advocated a huge array of things that a modern skeptic would reject instantly. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Abuse of skepticism

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)

Hi Daffodillman, careful, you might get accused of being a sock! I heartily agree that there is a very real pseudoskeptical element within rational skepticism - what you have aptly termed irrational skepticism, or garden variety debunkers. I'm happy to help add something along those lines here, but we'd need to find some good secondary sources to that effect. From memory Truzzi did some work in this area. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to be called a sock. If someone could give me a hand sourcing references i.e. telling me where I might look, I'd be greatful. Thanks for your assistance.Daffodillman (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On the general subject of Abuse of skepticism, there are UFO and crop-circle 'researchers' who will debunk hoax sightings but accept 'true' ones. Same with evolutionist Christians. All happily embrace some scientific skeptical arguments, but see no problem in ignoring others. It's illogical in my book to partially embrace an evidence-based world view. It's all or nothing. Not sure how to document this without doing original research, but I'll have a look for references. Jellogirl (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Link deletion

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)

I agree. Strange anyone would delete it. it's a very good link. However some of the others are not. Assuming we only want a handful per WP:EL, they should be the best available, and these clearly are not. Any suggestions? Jellogirl (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

scientific skeptics v. professional scientists

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)

Clarifying Scientiffic Skepticism

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.

• words of special importance

Gaiaguerrilla (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Replication of results

Are we sure this only applies to the routine debunking of pseudoscience, and not to mainstream ideas?

• The science that is typically written up in history books is the science of great discoveries and great theories. But there is an equally important part of science that is not glamorous; the science of the skeptic. An important part of science is the requirement that new discoveries be able to be replicated by other researchers before they are accepted. This helps prevent false theories from being widely accepted. This requirement for replication and the refusal to accept a new discovery until it is possible to replicate it can easily be easily be interpreted by naive commentators as "reactionary". [4]

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 journals

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)

History section

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)

Steffens' publisher publishes for young adults, is there an academic source that can replace him? Maybe that doesn't matter, do any of your sources actually mention scientific skepticism?

I've posted to your talk page also, you can't copy material from other articles without attribution, as you say, this is Wikipedia and ", Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s)." .

As it stands, this appear to be not only copyvio but original research, see WP:RS. There is also far too much about one particular person (if he can be linked to scientific skepticism). Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noted that the material added is attributed to an editor chastised for misuse of sources, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. This confirms that my concerns are not ungrounded. Sources used must be reliable sources that specifically discuss the subject. In this case the sources must directly address the concept of scientific skepticism when discussing any individual. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change the wording if you wish regarding the particular sources you have issue with. You know full well I am not Jagged_85 and you know full well how to contact him to ask him to fix the addition/citation. The quotes from Alhazen on his page were, however, from completely different sources and you threw the baby out with the bathwater in your edit. I don't know if you just undo edits instead of modifying them, but if that's the case, you should probably start making revisions of your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.21.141 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me to even think that you were Jagged. I've removed those quotes again, that's a use of primary sources to make an argument, which is WP:OR. The article needs third party reliable sources making those claims about Alhazen, not an editor's interpretation of his work. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you've objected to just one sentence out of the entire edit: "Ibn al-Haytham attributed his experimental scientific method and scientific skepticism to his Islamic faith. The Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, for example, places a strong emphasis on empiricism.[102]" The rest of it is basically just restating the quote with links to Wikipedia pages on the relevant topics. There are at least FOUR SEPARATE SOURCES used for the quotes. The quotes are Alhazen himself describing his views on theology. Remove all wording if you have to, but leave the quotes. That is relevant and valuable material. You have an article on Alhazen. It's reasonable to quote Alhazen. "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly" <-- That is exactly what is done by the current edit I have up there. The 3rd party sources are reliable and do state those interpretations (which I have still removed). Any idiot (yes, idiot) can realize that aside from that one line, they were just restating Alhazen's words in common English. And that IS contained in those 3rd party sources. For the benefit of everyone reading: I have stripped that edit from entirely relevant and reliable information because Dougweller has forced me to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.21.141 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Forced you? At Alhazen's article I'm not the only editor who reverted you and commented at the talk page on OR. But I do note that you have improved the article by removing statements not backed by reliable third party sources. The problem still with quotes is that choosing them can be an act of original research, which is why we look for third party sources instead of just using quotes. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 10 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)

Scope of the article

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)

Thank you for your edits and your comments. I think that what you have stated is accurate and relevant. Placing the {{fact}} tag on the line in the lead appears apropos; this line may be more of a reflection of Wikipedia's own appeal to authority dogma than an accurate portrayal of what goes on in the scientific world at large. I have added a link to reproducibility in the lead, and I would be supportive of your suggestion for a section on replication of results. This is a very important and key element of scientific method; and thus relevant to the issue of scientific skepticism. Wildbear (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, skepticism is a major interest of mine and a primary motivation of my 9 years' participation in Wikipedia: I like to give people both sides of all controversies, so they can make up their minds by comparing fact to theory (if they wish) rather than blindly engaging in wishful thinking.

Also thanks to Vsmith for this rewording and this formatting. You expressed my thought better than I could have, and I need to learn the cquote template. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should include more on the nature of scientific discoveries as "tentative" until supported by further research and verification. The current content focuses too much on pseudoscience and debunkers rather than the normal way science is done and the nature of scientists as skeptics. The quotes you have added should be moved out of the lead and into a section on the skeptical nature of scientists and research - perhaps a redo of the current Overview. Vsmith (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, ditto (with apologies to Rush Limbaugh). --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotefarm cut from lead

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)

Image removal

Carl Sagan's image is clearly relevant to this article. I am restoring it. --Greenmaven (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I approve of your restoration. I have expanded the caption for the image so that instead of simply saying "Carl Sagan" it now says "Carl Sagan, originator of the expression scientific skepticism" Dolphin (t) 07:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary Claims

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)

That sounds correct, based on my lifetime of reading about the scientific method and the history of science. But can we find some references to support it, so that it can be added to the article?

I've seen a number of claims made in Wikipedia for ideas which lack extraordinary evidence, such as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW). The theory not only lacks sufficient support, but Wikipedians persist in deleting or censoring evidence which contradicts it. In fact, there's not even an article on the theory itself (the link in the first sentence of this paragraph is a redirect), but POV-pushing contributors simply assume it is true, on the basis of widely repeated claims that AGW is "mainstream science".

If it were, then it certainly would be able to hold up against a few contrary claims. The relentless suppression of AGW skepticism leads me to believe that Wikipedians are siding with the AGW proponents, rather than writing neutrally about the global warming controversy. It's a pity, because Albert Einstein said he didn't worry if 400 other scientists disagreed with him; it only takes one man with a correct rebuttal to disprove a theory. Running away from anyone presenting a rebuttal smacks of pseudoscience.

I do wish Wikipedia would return to the original policy of NPOV and stop taking sides with the AGW proponents and against its opponents. It would serve our readership so much more if we would simply present the evidence and observations of both sides, and let the reader make up his own mind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's treat thousands of experts as just anyone else off the street and give equal space to what a handful of amateurs say. In the meantime, let's also treat every misspelled word as an equally valid spelling and give them just as much space in every Wikipedia article just to be fair to everyone. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You apparently miss the point. Rather, anyone who wants to present something as "scientific" must meet the same "extraordinary evidence" bar that real scientists face before they can get a new theory accepted. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Treating both sides as having equally valid arguments, despite the evidence firmly establishing one side as correct, is not NPOV. It's false equivalence. And "AGW skepticism" is almost always more accurately described as AGW denialism. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism and research

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)

You're putting the cart before the horse. We work from the sources and see where they put the weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You do. We don't. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the no original research policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies for articles, not for planning necessary development of the article such as further literature search on the Talk Page. Also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect invoking of IAR. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is more to the point. Wikipedia needs to have rules, and I think it is always proper of you to point them out. At the same time, excessive rule-based thinking is incompatible with reflection and discussion. If reasoned discussion is not welcome, then I'll simply leave this place to the nerds. I guess that's about time, yes. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. " You are making suggestions based on your personal opinions, not on the sources. It is always the case that sources are required for verification WP:V and to ensure no original research is done WP:NOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY makes clear, the end of Wikipedia editing is improving the articles, it is not following the rules. That end is subordinate. As for Stub-class or Start-class articles, an extremely harsh effectuation of WP:V and WP:NOR or other rules will hinder the regularly observed development of an article, although I can see that an argument can be made that gradual, very prudent development of an article is superior to the regularly seen more organic course of action. As I remarked in my first edit here, demanding an inappropriately extreme burden of proof for selected themes or opinions surrounding which there in controversy, but not for their opposite (also controversial) vantage points, can be used as mere POV pushing. You have of course crossed that threshold a long time ago; however, I do not necessarily want to hold it against you. In sum, Wikipedia is a community based on a set of shared values, and once you do not share the values involved, communication breaks down. I therefore discontinue my editing at Wikipedia at this point. It is too linked to extreme positivism, its very obvious advantages and its not so very obvious downsides. Acts do not and cannot stem from knowledge alone; they have to emanate from (free-)will. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

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:

• In several places, the article inappropriately confounds academia, e.g. science or the scientific community, with scientific skepticism. A stronger distinction needs to be made; soft sciences in particular, such as social anthropology, do not fit comfortably into the "science" term used by the article at present.
• In general, the article does not appropriately point out that there are large trans-disciplinary differences within scientific and academic methodology; rather, it explicitly assign a relatively rigorous "scientific method" to science. As the claim of such a rigor is actually virtually equivalent to an embracement of a scientific skepticist position (if the method is rigid, it provides more reproducible results), such claims must be found and scrutinised in the article.
• To make this clearer, the scientific methods used across academic disciplines vary strongly. The method referred to by the article is the one applied in hard science, where the paradigms and overarching theories are very rigid compared to, say, sociology. The principal idea of more expansive scientific skepticists is to apply this rigorous method also in softer fields, such as within health issues and within political and power issues. This is not made clear by the article; neither is it made clear that the methodology of hard science is in various degrees of dispute within such softer sciences. This includes for instance attitudes towards alternative medicine within school medicine, or the academic study of power (social and political) within political science.
• The distinction between the defensive purpose of scientific skepticism and the explorative purpose of scientific discovery is central to the definition, and needs to be expanded upon.
• Hence, the different ends of science and scientific skepticism need to be pointed out. The scientific process requires creative steps such as hypothesis generation, research design, discussion, synthesis and the incorporation of ethical considerations, all of which are explorative and appeal to intersubjective understanding, which is intrinsically in conflict with a strict adherence to empirical observation. This point is pointed out in the article, and needs to be put further into context.
• The reference to Plato must go. Plato was definitely not a scientific skepticist. The relation to philosophical skepticism should be further explored. The historical background with the views of Ockham, Descartes and Galileo should be described, and how they contrast with the views of Aristotle, neoplatonism, Aquinas and, say, Leibniz' Monadology and Newton's and Ockham's strictly religious views.
• If possible, and this is a vital point, the value perspective of scientific skepticism should be put into context. The ethical problem involved in basing normative statements on correlations can pretty easily be criticised by referring to the inventor of the correlation and eugenics, Galton.
• Some of these points can be summed up by the articles Antipositivism, Positivism dispute, Qualitative research, normative ethics and Problem of universals. Using this information, scientific skepticism can be put into its proper ontological context rather than being glued to the general scientific community or to academia. I wish whoever makes an honest effort of looking into this good luck, because contributions which are not appreciated by the abundance of scientific skepticists on Wikipedia are likely to be reverted, typically with reference to petty technicalities, such as demanding contributions to a Start-class article to have the rigor required for additions to a Featured Article. Narssarssuaq (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of original research on your part. On wikipedia there are policies against original research. See WP:NOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

...quod erat demonstrandum. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to show specific sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else reading is interested in having a go at the windmills, I'd recommend taking a look at the sources at the bottom of the articles of positivism dispute and qualitative research. Over time, I hope that the hard and soft science article may also see more sources added which can prove helpful. Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources have to be directly relevant to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How precisely do you find the qualitative research article irrelevant to this topic? Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

... because that article has no direct connection to this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment did not address the question. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It directly addressed your question. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It evaded the question. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Some of this disagreement can be traced back to national differences in the definition of the science concept. Americans typically define science narrowly, whereas the corresponding German concept of wissenschaft is broader, i.e. closer to the concept of research. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wissenschaft article makes it clear that it covers more than science: " Wissenschaft incorporates science, learning, knowledge, scholarship " IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Outside the English-speaking world, the science concept that you are used to does not exist. In Northern Central Europe, the English term "science" is simply translated into "wissenschaft" and vice versa, and something gets lost in translation. This is not merely a question of semantics or of who is right or wrong, but of whether ethics, bildung and other traditional academic virtues can be severed from science (whichever definition you use) or not. For instance, at universities in Norway, you are barred from receiving a bachelor's degree and denied entrance to the Master studies in physics and chemistry (hard science) and mathematics without having passed the Examen philosophicum, which for realists would comprise Philosophy of science, History of Philosophy and logics. This is in turn based on a long-standing admiration of characters such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig. Hence, in Germany, scientific skepticism would at the least mean something quite different than in Ireland (i.e. it would to a larger extent attack anti-academical opinions rather than strictly anti-empirical opinions). If you want references, the wikilinks should be able to provide some. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:43, 18 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)

The definition of science is an intrinsic part, or a subset if you wish, of the definition of scientific skepticism. As everything in a Wikipedia article radiates from the definition of the concept at hand, this is of importance to the development of the article. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest reading Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not so simple

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)

I see no mention of your claim on Blackmore's page? Your opinion of her being "deluded" is not welcome on WP. We site sources here. Sgerbic (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the relevance to this article? This article talk page is not a forum (WP:NOTAFORUM). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the article is about the definition of Scientific Skepticism. The Talk Page is about the article and how it can be improved. The definition of the subject matter has not been exhausted because there are believers in the paranormal who also occupy high positions in the world of skepticism. This combination of opposites is not mentioned in the article. Dickie birdie (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Skepticism is a process not a position on things, so I don't see the relevance of beliefs of people who call themselves skeptics. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, Skepticism is a process that eliminates the existence of the paranormal explanation of things. It is based upon achieving demonstrable evidence. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The intro should be modified

"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)

"...essentially rejecting antipositivism and qualitative research"

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)

Add a definition about what skepticism is

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)

What does Platonic realism have to do with it?

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:

• It doesn't appear to be accurate. Scientific skepticism doesn't seem imply any position on the reality of universals.
• It is irrelevant. Platonic realism is an abstruse philosophical position, whereas Scientific skepticism generally addresses issues that concern the lay public.
• Many movement skeptics would say that since Platonic realism makes no falsifiable claims, it is not a proper subject for skepticism. Flies 1 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It also says "the term scientific skepticism appears to have originated in the work of Carl Sagan..." If correct, it certainly seems relevant. Carl Sagan is on record as saying the teachings of Plato were antithetical to scientific scepticism ("the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility") and were instrumental in the suppression of science in general.

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

 —Sowlos  15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't read/seen that. I still don't see how these views of Sagan's relate to Platonic realism per se. You can oppose the part of Plato's project that Sagan criticizes there and be a Platonic realist. I mean, being a Platonic realist might predispose you against experimentation, e.g. if you value inquiry into the ideals more than inquiry into phenomena, but it doesn't preclude a scientific skeptic approach. To say that scientific skepticism "fundamentally rejects Platonic realism" just feels like a non-sequitur to me. Flies 1 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Sceptical Movement

• THe German Interwiki uses the expresssion Sceptical movement in distingushes in so far Scientific skepticism from the sceptical social movement that tries to advance a certain Weltanschaung. It would help to have a similar description here as well resp. rename the entry.
• The controversies within the movement, that lead to the exit of Truzzi (in Germany, Edgar Wunder) are lacking in this article.
• As well David J. Hess Science and the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison 1993) description of differences and parallels between New Age, Sceptical movement and scientific anomalism should be added.
• The creed and myths of scepticals, as in Michael Sofkas sceptical myths (see Sofka, M.D., Skeptiker (2000), Heft 1, 18-28 Text see Sofkas Homepage at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are lacking here as well.
• Its neither fair nor NPOV to mention Mertonian norms in the entry but leave out the Merton Thesis with regard to critism of Religion. Serten (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of "scientific skepticism"

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)

The oldest direct combination I could find of "scientific scepticism" (British spelling, with a c), was by William Hendry Stowell in a 1812 review of Christian Konrad Sprengel's 1807 book on cryptogamous plants: "Though [Sprengel] advances his opinions, particularly where they differ from conceded authorities, with much modesty, yet his manner evinces a conviction of the right to think for himself, since he has seen for himself; a right which will be the more readily acknowledged, as he appears to have observed without prepossession, and with a considerable degree of that scientific scepticism which is indispensable in the pursuit of truth." In books of a few years before that, one can already see similar terms like 'rational scepticism' and 'universal scepticism'. The oldest mention in French is from a 1816 book, that references John Glanwill, who apparently already wrote a book titled Scepsis Scientifica in 1665. Maybe we could find even earlier references if we would look carefully, but to me it's pretty obvious by now that Sagan did not invent the expression 'scientific skepticism' at all, and the 1812 mention by Stowell seems already in line with our modern understanding of the term. We only need some historian or scholar to confirm this, because what I've done here is still WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: Google Books identifies William Hendry Stowell as the author of The Eclectic Review, but I think it's unlikely Stowell wrote that 1812 review: he was 11 years old by then, only began studying in 1816, and did not become its co-editor until 1851. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, lets not mix sceptical philosophy, which is found in different versions as old as the classics and "scientific skepticism", which is per se no science at all but a recent (20th century and especially post WWI) popular movement, with associations, journals and activists, take Randi and others. The historic precedents are among others unitarians, positivists and Haeckels monism league. Haeckel was as well the role model for Dawkins. Serten (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I use the word 'philosophy', or say I was talking about philosophical skepticism on the one hand, or about the skeptical movement on the other? I'm not, and if you checked the history of this article, you'd know I have previously written in the history section that the skeptical movement is a modern phenomenon, especially kicked off by the Comité Para in 1949. Etymology, by the way, is about tracing the origin of a word or term, which may not always have had the meaning it has nowadays, but I assume you will probably agree with me that Glanvill's Graeco-Latin term "scepsis scientifica" in fact means "scientific skepticism" if you translate it directly to English? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with the translation, but I am rather sceptical about the connotation. I saw the danger you might have mixed it up, therefore the reference to philosophy. Trouts may be slapped, even flying pigs have recently been used on me. I suggest again, as in the previous section to move the article to Sceptical movement and confine it on the Randi et al activities, which started mostly after WWII. I think it would be easier to find a suitable etymology - which doesnt mix with elder philosophy - based on such a move and solve your problem as well. Serten (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad we're on the same page about the etymology question. Glanvill of course was not part of something that we would call "the sk/ceptical movement", but he may well have been the first to use the term "scientific skepticism", be it in (Graeco-)Latin; we just need a proper citation to confirm (or refute) that finding of mine.

About the distinctions and similarities between "scientific skepticism" and "the skeptical movement", Daniel Loxton had this to say in his 2013 essay Why Is There a Skeptical Movement, p. 65 note 2:

"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."

This seems to support your case for moving this page to "Skeptical movement" (we can discuss the k/c spelling if necessary), or even splitting it up into two separate articles about "Scientific skepticism" (Loxton: “the attitude of constructive doubt appropriate for scientific practice”) on the one hand, and "Skeptical movement" (Loxton: “the movement that grew up around (the) science-based (investigative skeptical_ critique of paranormal and fringe science claims”). I'm curious what you and others think. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

As far as I understood the literature, the movemeent basically started with the 1947 Comité pour l’Investigation Scientifique des Phénomènes Réputés Paranormaux (Comité Para), which tried to cut on the postwar widespread use of para means to look for missed persons and property. Martin Gardners 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science and Paul Kurtz anti astrology Manifest and the 1976 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) later Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are further milestones. Marcello Truzzi, later a famous sceptics sceptics, issued The Zetetic since 1976, a similar dissident is Edgar Wunder in Germany, where GWUP is rather strong. Carl Sagan is much to independent in his thinking to account for the sceptic movement. Serten (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw, give a roar :) Better move or split? Serten (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, don't just rely on my opinion, nor just on Loxton's essay. I merely said Loxton's footnote could be used to support your case if you really want a clear distinction between both meanings, but even he himself preferred "(scientific) skepticism" in the sense of the skeptical movement throughout his essay, which could be used to argue for the status quo. I haven't made up my mind yet. I propose to inform ourselves better by gathering and assessing more literature on the subject before we make a decision. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"[A] similar dissident is Edgar Wunder in Germany, where GWUP is rather strong.": No "Wunder" here, actually - To a large extent, GWUP meets the criteria for pseudosketicism as put forth in the article... --77.4.51.66 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw. Thank you, think I have to elaborate on my pioint and to provide more sources then.

• My point is strong on move, not split. There is no "Scientific skepticism" per se. Do we have an article about "Scientific physics", as not just mundan "Physics"? If its science based, it doesn't need to claim it, and Scientism is something most scientists avoid. Scepticism as a philosophy is being described (with science sources) in Scepticism and other articles as Pyrrhonism and Academic skepticism. The most important counterposition was Dogmatism in the classics, Fallibilism is important as well.
• Literature: the sceptical "dogma" is to be found en detail and as an easy read in Paul Kurtz The Skepticism and Humanism: The New Paradigm. David J. Hess: Science and the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison 1993 goes in long detail about the interactiopn of sceptics, religion and new age. Its worth while to look at the sceptics sceptics writings, as Marcello Truzzi or Edgar Wunder, or, harsh one Robert McLuhan, moderate Paul Feyerabend, Mary Midgley and Hans Eysenck. Serten (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs a broader treatment

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)

Those both strike me as editorial opinions, not what Wikipedia content is supposed to be. SageRad (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to where you believe the article could benefit from broader treatment? The only place where quackery and the paranormal appears to be mentioned is in the History section where they are necessarily relevant, being huge parts of the development of scientific skepticism as a movement. As for the burden of proof, this is an epistemological idea that is not specific to scientific skepticism, and science in particular doesn't treat the burden of proof with as much simplicity as you are implying here. With that said, if there are reliable sources about scientific skepticism that discuss how the burden of proof is applied to scientific skepticism, I think that should warrant inclusion.  Adrian^[232] 05:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Point ist that Uncle Ed idea is about "scepticism". The sceptical movement is more about a grassroot movement popularizing a positivist interpretation of scientific knowledge. I think the recent publications of e.g. Olav Hammer (take James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer. Historical Background of the Modern Sceptical Movement or in Handbook of New Age, ed by Daren Kemp,James R. Lewis 2007) allow for such a move. Quote 'The intellectual forebears of the modern sceptical movement are rather to be found among the many writers throughout history who have argued against beliefs they did not share' . I ask again to move the article to "Sceptical movement".Polentarion Talk 10:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes in the lede and added Hammers sorta laconic view about the "belief of others". Point is that a scientific sceptical won't challenge a minority view claiming that Napoleon was born on Elba, but leaves such trivia to historians. The movement is especially about paranormal claims, quackery (or what is being seen as such) and esoterism, some of the hardcore sceptics as well try to work against religion. Polentarion Talk 12:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed your changes. I misread your citations as you seemed to have split them in two and put the page numbers on the second. If you will read what you cited it is talking about a more general skepticism not scientific skepticism. That is what can be considered a social movement. There certainly has been studies of scientifc skepticism but it is not largely a social phenomenon. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I just had inserted some page references. Just read e.g. James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer. Historical Background of the Modern Sceptical Movement, entry on google books. Its about the movement dealt with by the article. Polentarion Talk 12:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem clear to me that there is a social movement aspect that speaks in the language of scientific skepticism. That is something that needs to be fleshed out more here. There is some social movement aspect to this which could be spoken to more in the "History" section as well as that which deviates from true scientific skepticism but uses the same language to promote a specific worldview, in the "Pseudoskepticism" section. And this is not solely about paranormal phenomena, but also about other aspects of interpretation of the world through science where the social movement may have a world view that is not in line completely with the actual science, and thereby uses the appearance of the role of skeptic to promote something that is not true scientific skepticism. SageRad (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about Truzzi and his label "pseudoskeptics" for people who disagree with him? Or some other use of the word "pseudoskepticism"? There are several which have little to do with each other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about much more than Truzzi, and more modern versions of imitation skeptics, as well. SageRad (talk) 12:59, 12 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.

This article is supposed to be about scientific scepticism and you quote 'James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer. Historical Background of the Modern Sceptical Movement' without the scientific. I pointed you to Skepticism without the scientific. I will now remove what you stuck in yet again. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Having read through the article I see that it is now mainly about what I would call rational skepticism or skeptical inquiry rather than what I think of as scientific skepticism and what has been put in describes the contents better but I think I really would prefer it to have a different title. I'll check up and see how often the various variants are used. Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, a revert is not warranted by the sources in question. Hammer deals with the topic of the article, will say the social movement started by CIS et al - which is being dealt with currently under the name of "scientific scepticism". The scientific is just a claim purported by the movement. Skepticism is about the phyrronic one. I would prefer you refrain from editwarring and start reading the sources. Hammer knows what is is writing about, Dyrendal is a member of the Norwegian outlets btw. :: For a compromise. lets move the article to "Sceptical movement". Polentarion Talk 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think 'rational inquiry' would be a better title for the contents from a quick search using google. It occurs more often than scientific scepticism and it does not have the baggage of two different meanings. The way the article is going the use and meaning of skepticism as part of the scientific method is being drowned by its use as a tool by groups debunking pseudoscience. Rational inquiry would restrict it to the use for debunking pseudoscience and then scientific skepticism can refer to the scientific method without encumbering it with stuff about telepathy or mediums. Dmcq (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thnx for the explanation. I fear that the content for 'rational inquiry' is already to be found in 'Scientific realism', 'Empiricism', 'Metaphysical naturalism' and Occams razor. Hammer is quite frank in pointing out that the dry part of the sceptical movement is not much about enquiry - that is more the hobby of zetetics, they are more about debunking (what they already knew before). That said, debunking as a method still needs to be explained. It is among the rituals of the sceptical movement and closely connected to the likes of Houdini, Gartner and Randi. Polentarion Talk 14:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitions

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)

• "Scientific skepticism” is the practice or project of studying paranormal and pseudoscientific claims through the lens of science and critical scholarship, and then sharing the results with the public.
  • And how do they know they are pseudoscientific until they study them? Aye, there's the catch. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

    Not a forum. Polentarion Talk 18:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • That is the difference between rational inquiry and "scientific skepticism". The latter has a Burgundian template of permitted hypotheses, rational inquiry does not. Newton was able to investigate the Philosopher's Stone and other ideas of alchemistry -- and publish his results without shame -- such is rational inquiry. In contrast, even the mention of the Philosopher's Stone would draw hoots of derision from a "scientific skeptic" -- it would be classed as a pseudoscience without investigation, and added to the list for scientific debunking. The conclusion I draw is that rational inquiry and scientific skepticism are not congruent phenomena. Scientific skepticism is a heuristic (philosophical) doctrine, not a scientific one. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You should provide a source if you're going to put forward ideas which may conflict with what a lot of people think. Otherwise it is reasonable to dismiss them as your own invention. Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself provides the answer: Scientific skepticism (also spelled scepticism) is a social movement and international network, which, starting in the 19th century, questions quackery, superstitions and pseudoscience. Why are these scientists questioning subjects they have already decided are "quackery, superstitions, or pseudoscience"? The statement is as anomalous as the boast, "I question all false statements, but I don't question true statements." Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources please not your own thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not required for indicating anomalies in a Wikipedia article. The quoted statement (if true) states that the verdict ("quackery, superstitions and pseudoscience") is determined before the investigation. And that, my friend, is not science. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:No Forum applies. You seem to discuss weaknesses in the movement. Better show them in sources. Polentarion Talk 06:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Rather, I expect this is clumsy wording in Wiki editing. It makes the Movement look like a pack of heretic hunters. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Third time: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skeptical movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Polentarion Talk 17:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

We cannot discuss the splitting of an article into two or three articles without some understanding of whether the proposed splits are wholly congruent -- and therefore redundant. It is not clear from your words whether you consider the oxymoron in the current text correctly represents the Movement. If it does, we are dealing with different subjects and rational inquiry should have its own article. If not, this article should be corrected. Hence, please clarify your position. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask to move to movement first. As rational inquiry and the like is a method claimed by the movement, its a subtopic. Whoever wants the split and is able to write about rational inquiry, can do it. I don't care. The main part of the article always was about the movement. Polentarion Talk 21:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with the move. There is no need to get everything right at the start - one just needs to head in a better direction. As to your "As rational inquiry and the like is a method claimed by the movement, its a subtopic" - that is complete rubbish. Associated with or used by is not the same as part of and is I think the same sort of mistake as led to the article on 'scientific skepticism' being turned into one about the skeptical movement. That is like saying since carpenters use saws then saws is a subtopic of carpentry. Dmcq (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. With regard to method's, have a look on the categories. Saws are acturally a subcat of Carpentry tools. I am aware that non sceptics (like me) may use rational inquiry as well. I would say that the term debunking is even more closely related with the movement. Polentarion Talk 09:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said saws weren't used in carpentry. But saws are also included in Cutting tools, Woodworking tools, Carpentry tools, Forestry tools as you probably saw but took no notice of. And saws are also used i metalwork and jewellery and stone cutting and lots more besides. If the title of an article is saws then we are not automatically talking in the context of carpentry. Are you really finding this a difficult idea? Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not finding this a difficult idea. We have the same approach here. Debunking and rational inquiry is currently a subsection of this article. I am well aware that the method has been used by others. Polentarion Talk 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Change title to Rational inquiry

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)

Sounds reasonable to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The main and long existing parts of this article, take the History of scientific skepticism for an example, is about proponents and organizations like Kurtz and Randi, will say the movement. The movement deserves its own article anyway. If youre able to write something about Scientific skepticism / rational inquiry as a method or philosophy that is independent of the likes of scientific method, so feel free to do so. Polentarion Talk 14:22, 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)

I feel I just wasted a bit of my life reading that, but then again there's loads of people around who'll kill somebody else because of something some prophet said in a desert a long time ago - they could do with some rational inquiry. Yep I think a split would be good. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I was not intending to anyone being killed in the desert. Wikipedia:Splitting is much less of red tape than in the deWP. You should extract the parts in question for a new article and mention that in the edit comment. Which parts do you need? I guess it not too much, namely

• Various definitions
• Second section of Overview
• First section of History of scientific skepticism

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)

By wasting my time reading that I meant it all seemed pretty obvious and didn't say anything that hadn't been said a hundred times before and one would wonder why anyone would write it again, but as I say it just isn't how a lot of people work. Where did "skeptical movement" come from? Are you wanting a three way split? It doesn't seem to be a very common term, what would be in it that an article on rational inquiry wouldn't cover? Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Rational inquiry includes the work of people such as Isaac Newton, who worked carefully from empirical evidence to throw light on the wherever it led. The Skeptical Movement is entirely different. The Skeptical Movement is a group of hard-line doctrinaire Positivists, whose visitations with science are at best accidental. When the Skeptical Movement does happen to cross with science, we have Scientific Skepticism. Whether the Skeptical Movement has sufficient notability for a page of its own is an entirely different question. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I would admit to Descartes writings being one source for rational inquiry okay but Newton was no fan of Descartes. Well actually I think Descartes writing is obtuse and disjointed but one can't choose ones sources. By 'hardline positivism' I guess you mean that there is some sort of aggressive denial of anything which isn't testable. As far as I can see those organisation tend to have nothing to say about questions like whether God exists rather than going out of their way to deny all religion. They are concerned more about how to think rationally, debunking pseudoscience and generally promoting everyday decision making on the basis of facts and testing. I haven't the foggiest what is in your mind when you say scientific skepticism or why you have it in capitals. As far as I can see the skepical movement is a reasonable thing to cover under rational inquiry. Dmcq (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I put the words in capital letters to indicate a Movement, just as the Occupy Movement and many others capitalize generic terms to indicate specific things. I find very little from Newton of the "debunking" sort. He established many truths and principles, but he did not expend his efforts to "debunk" the beliefs of others, except when he attacked certain doctrines of the Bible. I forget the specifics, but they were rather esoteric. Attacking the beliefs of other people is a very different operation from expanding knowledge. The second difference is basic to the operation of science. Modern Positivists exclude evidence not testable with physical instruments. Personal testimony is not accepted. Positivists do not always wait for tests; they militate against any hypotheses that contradict the doctrines of bf skinner -- the hypotheses are forbidden. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All this seems pretty incoherent. You seem to be saying that one should never do things Newton would not do. That is weird. Also, you are mixing many different things together: skeptics are different from positivists, and B.F. Skinner was a CSICOP member but his ideas are not popular anymore, neither among skeptics nor elsewhere. The sort of stereotyped thinking you are displaying here is not helpful. Maybe you should try to ignore your own worldview and move in the direction of facts instead? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to Isaac Newton, he (quote Keynes, who collected those Newtonia) "was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians". Take Isaac Newton's occult studies. He could be used as well as a poster child of esoterics. I prefer reading the sources and provide definitions. A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term, either you provide the essence and limitations of the term or you give an account of the objects and activities it includes. That should be based on sources and less on personal opinions. Polentarion Talk 10:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Is this related to anything? Did anybody ask you to explain what a definition is? You aren't making yourself any clearer than Sfarney did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that we must all be like Newton, so it's not weird. bf skinner did not capitalize his names, but some of skinner's major ideas dominate many fields, including his radical Positivism. This is not "stereotyped thinking", this is description. If you don't understand someone's comments, you should ask for clarification or further explanation. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The question was whether rational inquiry is a synonym of skeptical movment. I brought up Newton to show that the terms are not synonyms. Newton was dedicated to rational inquiry. Newton was not a skeptic. Hence, the two terms are not synonymous.

"Rational inquiry includes the work of people such as Isaac Newton" - That is irrelevant. What skeptics do is called "rational inquiry". You don't get to fantasize about who else did things that could have been called that if somebody had thought of calling it that. We use sources for such associations. Unless you find a reliable source saying "Newton did rational inquiry", Newton does not come into it. Your Newton stuff was off-topic and did not make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq: 1) Sorry, but you should read the sources provided in the article before coming up with a question like "Where did "skeptical movement" come from?" The term is being described in the sceptical manifesto, you find it e.g. in prominent articles, not at least obituaries of Paul Kurtz and in the article about the history of the sceptical moevement by Daniel Loxton, a major source of this very article and of cause you find it as title of Hammers paper and various further scholars dealing with the movement.

@Dmcq: 2) I see rational inquiry as a side aspect - it is a method claimed by sceptics, but the term does not describe sceptics as a social phenomen. I have the impression, that "rational inquiry" it is synonym with 'debunking' here and the article would gain from a section on both.

@Hob Gadling: You haven't been able to utter a sentence without personal attack so far. Several people discussed Newton as an suitable example for rational inquiry, I provided an WP link. btw Newton's receipe for the philosphers stone (only working if mars and moon are in the right position) has been refound and bought by the society of American chemists this year. If Newton would be still present, he most probably would get a lot of flak by the sceptical movement. I am just interested in improving this article. Polentarion Talk 13:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. Maybe you don't want me to understand what you are trying to say. Suit yourself, it's not that important for me. Anyway, pointing out that a contribution of yours is unintelligible does not constitute a personal attack. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of "personal attack" before you make accusations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The question were :Who are you talking to? Is this related to anything? Answer: The guys discussing Newton as a sceptic and this very section of the talk page. Polentarion Talk 14:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I was asking about the skeptical movement as in do you want a three way split and in what way did you see it as requiring yet another article rather than being covered under rational inquiry. You brought up the skeptical movement when replying about splitting the article, you should have said how you saw the split being done if you wanted a different split. It would have been much better if you had just answered the question. I see the skeptical movement as being covered under rational inquiry, there is far more on rational inquiry then about the skeptical movement and I see the skeptical movement as a subtopic, however I have no great objection to some article covering the various skeptical societies and how they started off. In your comment about debunking are you saying you want scientific skepticism to cover rational inquiry rather than be split off? That Newton is famous in science an mathematics does not make him a source on rational inquiry, why are you discussing him? Perhaps if instead of putting in at signs and peoples handles you dealt with the issues instead it would make for a clearer discussion. You can assume that people who have recently contributed to a discussion are still around and it is better to address editors in general. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move to skeptical movement

(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

• Various definitions (two of three)
• Second section of Overview
• First section of History of scientific skepticism
• Debunking and rational inquiry (the former examples)

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 really really wish you would stop addressing particular people unless necessary. Could you just stop it please. It leads to friction and militates against inclusive discussion.

I am okay with a move of this article to skeptical movement instead. The various references mostly say skeptical without the scientific. In 2014 there was very little about any movement that I can see but it has been turned into one about that topic. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Move: Let us do it then. Polentarion Talk 06:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves are not OK per WP:MOVE and Wikipedia:Requested moves - that was too BOLD. I have moved it back. The community may agree that Skeptical movement is the best name, but you have to go through the process to get consensus for that. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I started the process in 2014. WP:DRNC applies. Polentarion Talk 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask about whether you want this; I said there is no consensus for it. DRNC is an essay that is not widely cited (and a horrible, WP:TENDENTIOUS-promoting one at that) If you can provide a diff or link showing there is consensus for this move, I will self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I started the process in 2014. Just read the last entries here. Polentarion Talk 18:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean the section above Talk:Scientific_skepticism#Sceptical_Movement you started under your old username, which got no responses. You repeated your points (again under your old username in the next section Talk:Scientific_skepticism#Etymology_of_.22scientific_skepticism.22. In this section someone else proposed a different page move. No consensus for your move. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I could have done it already in 2004, as nobody cared about the article. Dmcq does, actally discusses the move and was finally in line with it. If others stage a usenet forum here, I tend to not take them seriously. In so far no reason for a revert and WP:DRNC applies well. Polentarion Talk 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The page move was reverted with a comment saying saying unilateral page moves are not okay by Wikipedia:Requested moves. That says in the second sentence of the lead "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this" So I have asked if they actually object to the move to skeptical movement. Dmcq (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I reviewed the discussion above again. There was enough consensus and I've self-reverted. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk page archive

I think this talk page warrants an archive. OK? Polentarion Talk 16:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite long. SageRad (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it be archived at the moment? I'm not sure that is a good idea when there seems to be active (although confused) discussion about it being moved. Of course, parts of it could be archived. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of overview, old stuff should be archivid. Nothing more, nothing less. Polentarion Talk 10:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion

OK, so where's the move discussion then? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a discussion at #Change title to Rational inquiry but it wouldn't harm to start a new one if you have some objection as that wasn't the eventual destination. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a good discussion. I don't see any consensus for a move William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't eaxctly according Robert's Rules of Order, agreed. But the closure was a self revert to movement. That said, the content was already in 2014 about people and organizations, will say movement, and movement is acknowledged by emic and etic sources. Polentarion Talk 10:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to the move? I prefer the move as it looked to me something like that an article on hammers had been turned into one about forging, in which case it should be renamed forging. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hammer quotes in the introduction

"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)

Both Lexton and Dyrendal (which refers in Hammer, page reference given).

• Lexton:
  • "Newer skeptics sometimes suppose that skepticism has recently widened its focus to include alternative medicine. As a historical matter, the opposite is true: criticism of questionable and quack medicine is one of the broadest and deepest pillars in the skeptical foundation."
• Dyrendal (which has a chapter in Hammers volume):
  • "While emic historiography may always construct a long line of forebears, the history of the sceptics' movement is much shorter. Following Olav Hammer's (2001, pp. 201–330) terminology, it was in the nineteenth century that “scientism” appeared as a “language of faith”. Spiritualists, an early target of sceptical inquiry (Hammer 2007, p. 385)"
  • "One early background may be seen in the gradual growth of scientific medicine, and the boundary work of the medical profession towards lay healers and alternative medical practitioners."

I guess "Lexton" is Loxton, and "which refers in Hammer" means "who are referred to in Hammer". Or maybe it is the other direction "who refer to Hammer".

Turning "is one of the broadest and deepest pillars" into "The movement formed due to" is original research.

Equating the skeptical movement with "scientism", then switching one for the other in a sentence from a quote is original research. Also, "scientism" is a polemical word used mainly by religious opponents of science, which makes this maneuver especially dubious.

Turning "One early background [of what?]" into "The movement formed due to" is original research. The movement could have one specific origin and then immediately taken up alt-med.

The first question is: when did the movement start? If the nineteenth century is mentioned: Do people like Faraday, Lavoisier, Guillotin and Franklin count? (Faraday debunked table-turning in the 1800s; Guillotin, Lavoisier and Franklin debunked Mesmer in the 1700s.) Usually Comité Para is seen as the starting point. Whatever the answer is, the first subjects of the movement should be consistent with the answer. Picking random unconnected bits of information from different eras and concatenating them as if they belong together is not the right way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Hippocrates said all diseases were due to natural causes I wouldn't say skepticism about alternative medicine was anything new. We can't start sticking in people's names just because they were scientists or debunked ideas, they have got to have contributed to a philosophy like Descartes did for instance or else have actually founded some society concerned with something like that. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hob Gadling. I am sort of annoyed that you seem not even bother to read the stuff but accuse me to provide orginal research. Thats been debunked based on emic and etic sources. I put some connotation marks around those "QUOTATIONS" to make it clearer to you.

I would recommand as well to read the first sentence of Dyrendal in the same paragraph. Emic historiography (like the one of Loxton) always tends to forebears till the ancient greeks. Actual history is, as a basic rule in the humanities, always much shorter. The major difference between "historical use of sceptical method" and sceptical movement is "skeptics banding together in sceptical societies". Will say, roots in the 19th century is established, but Hippocrates is bogus. Polentarion Talk 16:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

None of this is related to what I said. I never said you should use Loxton. I never mentioned Hippocrates. (Maybe you should keep your responses to different people apart and use indentation correctly - two colons for the response to a one-colon contibution, three colons for a response to a two-colon contribution, and so on.) I don't care about your quotation marks, wherever they may be. I only complained that you cut unrelated tidbits about unrelated times from unrelated sources and botched them together into a history of your own making, a.k.a. WP:OR.

You are currently trying to decide, alone, what the article is about ("Skeptical movement"), and what it should say about it. These are big changes, and they should be done in a consensus. When people take you to task for inconsistencies in the text, you complain by ignoring what they said and talking about something else. This is not how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

A good example of one of the problems of addressing particular people in replies. It was me that mentioned Hippocrates and I was not meaning for them to be in the article. I hope the Google English to German translator isn't being used to make sense of what is being said here. Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hob startet this section with a sort of "gotcha" - he assumed that alternative medicine was not the focus of early sceptics. It has been debunked. Either Dyrendals history of the sceptical movement chapter (where the "unrelated tidbits" come from, in a volume edited by Hammer) and Loxton's amateur chronic back the early role of quackery. That said, Hob starts to complain about a Loxton quote not being intended. If you have no interest in the article but are just about a bad faith show of amateur sophism, stop it. Calling original quotes from actual scholars "my OR" is embarrassing, 'zum fremdschämen'.
• Dmcq: Loxton starts with the bible. If your hippocrates was not about the article, just leave it out. Polentarion Talk 09:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"he assumed that alternative medicine was not the focus of early sceptics" no, I did not. I objected to your turning "the focus of" into "The movement formed due to".

"Hob starts to complain about a Loxton quote not being intended"? Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Who intends what? I see no connection to what I said. Maybe your English is not good enough to allow you to make yourself clear, or maybe it's your way of "thinking", going on tangents, and taking things out of context.

I never called the original quotes "original research", I called your distortions of original quotes "original research". I explained exactly what I meant - twice - and you are simply not listening. You keep accusing me of doing stupid things I did not do. Stop doing that and I stop defending myself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You actually called the original quotes "original research", see the quote about "scientism". You called quotes from Hammer and Dyrendal's research on the SM "unrelated tidbits about unrelated times from unrelated sources". You called Hammer an obscure scholar. Cut the sophism and reduce your name calling. It is embarrassing how you deal with actual scholarship. Polentarion Talk 15:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"You actually called the original quotes "original research"" - Transparent, easily refuted lie. The original quote you supplied

it was in the nineteenth century that “scientism” appeared as a “language of faith”

does not contain the words "skeptical movement" and there is no evidence that it is about the skeptical movement. It is about "scientism". I said that transplanting the "nineteenth century" part from "scientism" to "skeptical movement" is original research:

"Equating the skeptical movement with "scientism", then switching one for the other in a sentence from a quote is original research."

"You called quotes from Hammer and Dyrendal's research "unrelated tidbits about unrelated times from unrelated sources"". True. This does not say anything bad about the quotes themselves. But your text connected those unrelated tidbits as if they had anything to do with each other. Maybe they do, in your mind. Connecting them is OR.

"You called Hammer an obscure scholar." - No, I called him an obscure guy. Well, he is, at the moment. Maybe he won't be next year. How is that related to anything?

I know your modus operandi. In the German Wikipedia you (as user S*rten) tried to use Larry Laudan and Paul Feyerabend as sources for the skeptical movement article (see de:Diskussion:Skeptikerbewegung) although both never uttered a word about the subject - you saw a contradiction between what those guys said and what the skeptical movement said, and you wrote an essay into article about that contradiction. Classic TF. And what you are doing here is similar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I can only assume you are being ddeliberately offensive always addressing me when I do not wished to be addressed directly except when it is really necessary. If you do not wish to cause trouble and offense and starting personal attacks please stop it. I really mean just don't stick in dmcq unless actually really necessary. There are other editors here and this should not be two person conversations. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been doing that in good faith, to reduce noise in discussions with different streams. Note taken. Polentarion Talk 15:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Discussions should not be unnecessarily personalized, they should be about the article and everyone can contribute. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ockhams Razor and the sceptical movement

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)

We already have an article Occam's razor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

True. And? Polentarion Talk 18:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not sure if you knew and thought it might help your editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Point is, the sceptical movement is a side show of male bearded pompous white secularists, and Occam's razor a far more important heritage of the Christian respectively scholastic roots of science. I would have been rather flabbergasted if we still had no article about the razor. Schlotman is quite outspoken about misuse by sceptology adherents. Polentarion Talk 19:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Points for improvement

I think the following sections need some improvement

• 4Examples
• 4.1Pseudoskepticism
• 5Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

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)

When you claim that debunking is "notoriously futile", you obviously assume that the goal of debunking is to convince everyone. Your assumption is wrong. Skeptics know that some people are impervious to reasoning. The goal of debunking is supplying the others with it.

Hammer, eh? So you found another obscure guy you can pretend is a source for the anti-skeptic stuff you want to add to articles.

You also want to change the subject of the article from the idea itself to the group of people who hold the idea. That includes renaming the article. And then, suddenly, some stuff does not belong here anymore. Why don't you just make a new article about the group? But then the information you want destroyed is not destroyed, so that is probably not very attractive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I just ask to clean up. Pseudoscience and Pseudoscepticism have separate entries. With regard to the research about the sceptical movement, it provides some evidence and research about this sort of scepticals. I would have expected a true scientific sceptic would be happy, if his activities are being covered by actual scholars. Polentarion Talk 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"I would have expected" - don't be silly. You know it's not "being covered by actual scholars" I am objecting to. Cut the sophism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Olav Hammer is an actual scholar, Daniel Loxton, which had been described in this article as "sceptical historian", isn't. I love to use rational inquiry. Polentarion Talk 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said: cut the sophism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is about redundant sections, therefore "destroying information" is not the case anyway. You failed to give an constructive answer so far. You started to attack Hammer, "obscure guy, "anti-sceptical stuff". As said before, stop personal attacks. Polentarion Talk 13:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You do have a history of POV-warring on exactly this subject, so I know what to expect: slanted original research and quote-mining. I never said it is Hammer's fault.

I debunked your original research about the "notoriously futile debunking ritual" above. From your point of view, that may not be "constructive", but keeping non-sequitur stuff invented by users out of articles is still a good thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hammer is quite outspoken about the lack of reflection inside the movement about the futility of its attempts. If that was debunking, it's been just another showcase. Polentarion Talk 13:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, "Hob Gadling", comment on the content and stop attributing motives to the other editor -- the last several comments here are personal attacks because they are all about the commenter. Please explain yourself better and speak in a way that references the content questions but does not use ad hominems or call the others' speech "sophism" or reference to their history with an interpretation etc. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia -- civility and assuming good faith. I personally do see good faith here and i think Polentarion is speaking well, and could be engaged on the content. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"the last several comments here are personal attacks because they are all about the commenter" This is not true. "I never said it is Hammer's fault" is a rebut of his reasoning "You started to attack Hammer". What am I expected to say to a user who invents non-sequitur stuff, except "don't invent non-sequitur stuff"?

(BTW, I have know this guy for several years and my AGF regarding him has run out long ago. Are you saying I should ignore his "criminal record" for exactly this behavior on exactly this subject? de:Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer:Polentarion) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are the parts where i saw you as commenting on the editor and not on content: "cut the sophism" and "You do have a history of POV-warring on exactly this subject, so I know what to expect: slanted original research and quote-mining." Can you see how both of those comments of yours, Hob, are negative aspersions about another editor? SageRad (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if they are accurate? This guy was one of two contributors to a user subpage on German Wikipedia where skepticism is described as pathological. He has an agenda, and he doesn't fight nice. Shouldn't you look at the facts before you complain? This discussion is weird. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I fear Hob talk page contributions are not about facts but predominantly about persons, about his personal pride and prejudice. Quite boring. Hmm, I could translate our (User:Gamma's and mine) essay about scepticals and their role in the deWP into English. How about that? I gonna ask Gamma what he thinks of the idea. Polentarion Talk 18:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Great idea. That will tell the readers nothing about skeptics but a lot about you. I'm all for it, it will make my job easier because nobody will mistake you for a serious editor. But Gamma has ignored you from the beginning - I think you embarrass him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What is your job? You preach a weird gospel. Polentarion Talk 22:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues and Odysseys 2016

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)

See below about the section; in this dif you also added unsourced content, which I also reverted. Per WP:PRESERVE that content was:

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.. 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.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

Don't know what you mean by "first version", sorry. Sourcing is not optional.Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The first version is the one deleted a while ago. There is no need for single references, we coiuld refer to general sources in a separate list. Btw, sourcing IS optional - we could write the article based on trivia. Like elderly bearded white DWEM leading sceptology ;) Polentarion Talk 23:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

PS.: The way you present a trivia point as being "fraudulent" is plain bullshit, sorry to say. The sceptical movement always was and never ended to be a white male geriatric zoo - Rebecca Watson showed it - and in so far 20 year old sources still apply. Polentarion Talk 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You did well to bring in the sexism stuff. Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No prob. You forgot about the title of the section, it's been overview, not about elevatorgate. The split of Tuzzi (and the parallel to Wunder) is much more important than detailed stories of skepchick. And Hess was outspoken about white geriatric (bearded) males with Dawkins appearing like the pope respectively Billy Graham on a reborn Evangelzation Camp ;) Polentarion Talk 01:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In this dif you restored unsourced content about " a similar controversy happened with Edgar Wunder in the German sceptical movement.". Don't add unsourced content to WP, and don't edit war to keep it. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Fart applies. Its like Paris is in France. You left out white and geriatric - thats whitewashing. No reason given to restore that. And I would prefer to have an overview in the overview section, not fine details about a single event. Polentarion Talk 02:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

White and old are in there now, and were already when you wrote that. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I may have over seen you restoring a part, sorry for that, if so. We still should add again the prevalence of nerds and tekkies, will say most have an science and engineering background and lack humanities and social science perspectives. Polentarion Talk 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues and Odysseys 2016 section

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.

Issues and Odysseys 2016

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". The "Odysseys" reflects the various paths they found to scientific skepticism.

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." 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." 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." 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. 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." 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."

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". 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." Philosopher Daniel Dennett writes that expertise should not be ignored, authority should mean something, and false balance should be called out. 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. 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."

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It contains some praise for the Magazine and as well for Scientific literacy. Nye and others have to swallow the Donald first and seem to fear about climatism as well. I don't see any valid reference to this article, which is about the Skeptical_movement, not about US policy and education. Polentarion Talk 23:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, why was I not tagged on this revert? This is a page about the Skeptical Movement, these are the movers and shakers of the movement and their opinions of where they think the movement is and where it should go as of right now. This is not Promotional or Undo. And I would have appreciated it if instead I was notified.Sgerbic (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is really WP:UNDUE based on a non-indepedent source. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Run that past me again please Jytdog. They are a skeptic magazine, THE skeptic magazine, who is asking the opinion of the "stars" of the skeptical movement all of which are notable people. Maybe Gardeners Monthly would be a better resource for what is happening in the skeptic movement? S.I. is a secondary notable source that published notable opinions about the topic of the Wikipedia article. that is not undue.Sgerbic (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

yep so it is a big bolus of in-universe blabber. I would do the same if some chiropractic journal had a big anniversary issue on the status of chiropractic and some chiropractor would be making the same in-universe argument that you are making. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Rules are for everybody. Polentarion deleted the paragraph for the wrong reason, of course, as usual, but accidentally he did the right thing once - though in his usual rude manner.

SI regularly has articles like this where it cheers its heroes (who are also my heroes) but they are more encouraging than informative. They have their place, but an encyclopedia article should not adopt them.

Maybe some parts are salvageable though. We could compress it to one sentence at most. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand your argument. The problem isn't that I added notable skeptic's opinions of what is going on in 2016 with the skeptical movement. The problem is that I took all these opinions from one source? If this is true, then if we found all these peoples same opinion written in different places then the edit would stand? How many would it need to be? 50%? If so then this opens the door to other opinions that are not solicited by S.I. Would this satisfy everyone?Sgerbic (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't lay my finger on it but this whole thing just feels wrong. Maybe it is because all those statements only have the occasion in common: an anniversary. Some of those people talk about goals, some about current issues, some about strategies. It's a wild mixture. If the reader wants to read what skeptics' goal is, she needs to filter through all this. The same for current issues or strategies. It is interesting, but as part of an encyclopedia article, it is neither here nor there. Now I think about it, maybe the article should have something like "Goals", "Methods", "Strategies" paragraphs. Maybe this paragraph could be split into such subsections. With a proper introduction, this could work. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The policy issue is WP:UNDUE and the reason it is UNDUE is that this is a bunch of content sourced to a single non-independent source; this special anniversary issue. It also basically turns WP into a summary of that special issue and we are not its webhost nor are we a blog for skeptical movement, per WP:PROMO (part of WP:NOT). This is an encyclopedia article and in my view, the way various prominent skeptics feel about the movement on the 40th anniversary is not encyclopedic content. It is the same policy/guideline-based argument I would bring if someone did the same with some chiro-journal special issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

personal opinion and personal attacks. Knock if off
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of it is useless, as it is about guys bragging on their own stuff instead of anything about the Magazine or the movement. There are some noteable exemptions: Lilienfeld asks for a more critical look at the lack of success of the movement. Something asked for by Hess or Hammer as well. Geologist Sharon Hill asks for a reboot and refers a) to the WASA (white anglo saxon atheist) and old man stereotype. She asks for reboot, as the current fractured community rife in in-fighting doesn't have much of a future. Bridgstock is more optimistic about the geriatric bearded white men, as e.g. Indian sceptics seem to deliver some fresh blood. Polentarion Talk 21:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Your contribution is as worthless as predictable. Of course I did not mean you with "others". Go away and let the serious people talk. Oh right: did you find the place where I call somebody a killer yet? Can't be that difficult, can it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Does your deletion of my contribution mean you know I never said it? Does being caught at lying hurt you that much? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

I have answered your question as best i can above. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

My proposal goeas as forth: While most of the text is rather internal, about the Magazine or the movement, there are some noteable exemptions:

• • Lilienfeld asks for a more critical look at the lack of success of the movement. Something asked for by Hess or Hammer as well.
  • Geologist Sharon Hill asks for a reboot and refers a) to the old white man stereotype in the skeptical moevement. She asks for an internal reboot and describes the scepticals as a fractured community rife in in-fighting which doesn't have much of a future.
  • Bridgstock is more optimistic about the geriatric bearded white men, as e.g. Indian sceptics seem to deliver some fresh blood. Polentarion Talk 07:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jocular names - skeptopreneur

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)

The sources use terms like skeptopreneurs and refer to an abundance of geriatric white males, not just some sole sexist in the elevator. You keep calling me names, from editwarring till falsification but your way of editorializing the sources is close to whitewashing. Polentarion Talk 02:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A book comfortable with jokey language =/= Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. P wants to turn the article into an attack piece. The Rebecca Watson stuff, which is desribed pretty well in the Rebecca Watson article, was really missing here, and adding it was a good thing. But that was coincidence, because improving the article is not this user's goal.

Cross-checking whatever he adds with the sources given is a must; he has a history of distorting quotes to fit his anti-skeptic agenda. That was one of the reasons for his many blocks on German Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The book in question is called Consumption and Spirituality and was written by Diego Rinallo, Linda M. Scott, Pauline Maclaran and published by Routledge in 2013. Professor Linda Scott is the Emeritus DP World Chair for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford.DiegoRinallo‎ is Associate Professor of Marketing and Consumer Culture, Kedge Business School, Marseille. Pauline Maclaran is Professor of Marketing & Consumer Research in the School of Management at Royal Holloway. Will say this is a academic publication in well known publishing house. And if you don't like the language, it is your problem and POV. I ask to restore the content of cause. Polentarion Talk 21:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Marketing folk - geez. Not relevant. What's next - Yellow Press? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Just_don't_like_it applies. Economists, for sure and exactly on the topic of this article, academic, scholarly, clearly relevant, third party using understandeable language and even humour. As said, restore it. Your personal POV is not relevant. Polentarion Talk 22:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What economists say is not relevant to the topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This high ranking economists have studied the skeptical movement. Polentarion Talk 22:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Diego Rinallo, Linda M. Scott and Pauline Maclaran are "high-ranking economists"? Well, if you say so... Is there any evidence they "studied the skeptical movement" except them allegedly making jokes about it? I could not even find the word "skeptopreneur" on the internet, except two links about "Lost Motorcyclist", so if they wrote about it, nobody except you seems to have read it. To put it very mildly, that is not enough to justify relevance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Try Saïd Business School, Royal_Holloway,_University_of_London and KEDGE Business School, the latter a Grande ecole btw.. Polentarion Talk 22:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Those articles do not contain that word either. You are not making any sense, as usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your claim was about high ranking. Those scholars are on very high ranking universities. You praise science, you seem to lack an idea of actual Wissenschaft. Polentarion Talk 07:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Polentarian, WP has polices about NPOV; book publishers don't. We don't include everything every source says, for various reasons. If you held an RfC on casually including "skeptopreneur" or "skepchick" as you did in your dif, especially based on this ref only, it would go down in flames. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The chapter is called No Gods. No Masters? The "New Atheist" Movement and the Commercialization of Unbelief, (p.54-68), by Mary Johnstone-Louis, in Consumption and Spirituality by Diego Rinallo, Linda M. Scott, Pauline Maclaran, Routledge 2013. The book investigates how spiritual beliefs, practices, and experiences (including those of sceptics and new atheists) are now embedded into a global consumer culture. That said, a sceptoproneur is a (business) leader on the belief (resp. unbelief) markets. The chapter is about the global impact of sceptoproneurs like Dawkins e.g. with books, speeches and media. If WP or the sceptical part of it stays in the 1980ies language wise, I don't have to care much. Watson is called skepchick and sceptoproneur is an interesting term in a valuable study. It is Ok to elaborate on the final text and wording but of cause the study is noteable and very much about this article. Polentarion Talk 22:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Again: does that article have any notable reception? Did anybody except you read it? See [6]. 69 hits, only the book itself and sites where you can buy it. Are those authors that bad at marketing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The source is fine. The word choice was not. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. Just to make you aware that a chapter about the new atheists and their sceptical sidewing written by a University of Oxford scholar in a Routledge publication undergoes real scrutiny - nothing an amateur project like Wikipedia never ever will provide. That said, Wikipedia never has been a source, this book of cause is one. And NPOV does not apply in the real world. Thank God. Polentarion Talk 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Googling sceptopreneur turns up exactly zero results. Clearly such made-up jargon was never in widespread use and is therefore completely unsuitable for Wikipedia.  Adrian^[232] 04:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not relevant. The word sounds like a red herring for you. The reaction fits with Hess' theory about the skeptical movement feeling "science (and the movement itself) being sacred" and not being touched by e.g. commercial gains. That said, economists deals with social religeous movements, cults and their role on the spiritual marketplace. The Theory of religious economy is being used here, being expanded on atheists, skepticals and their leading figures and preachermen (bearded, white geriatric men always fit well in the role), will say skeptopreneurs. I will provide a different wording, but this academic source is of cause exact on the point and much more valuable than internal stuff from skeptical magazines. Polentarion Talk 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I will not be responding further here per WP:SHUN and I reckon others will do the same. Only one editor wants this and everyone else has provided policy-based reasons not to. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As you said, the word choice needs to be adapted, the source as such is fine. I will use a better wording. 18:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for how to structure this entry, based on Swedish-language Wikipedia

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)

FYI, the Swedish article can be viewed via Google translate here. (Placed here for new readers.) --David Tornheim (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Swedish article is about a different topic, called "scientific skepticism". I doubt the term would warrant a separate entry. We describe the movement and that is complicated enough. Polentarion Talk 21:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

History lesson: The Swedish article was about the same subject as this one until you renamed and reworked this one, so your reasoning is invalid. What you doubt is not relevant, and neither are your limitations on subject complexity. I am for such an article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This article and its sources are about the movement and they always have been about it. The article has been moved to adapt to the content. If you want to write about "scientific scepticism", whatever that may be, try to write a draft, propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation and move it then into article space. Polentarion Talk 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[7] --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

? As said, feel free to write an article about scientific skepticism. The movement is being described here. Polentarion Talk 17:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was there. The link above points to it. I know you never understood the concept of scientific skepticism, so you don't need to repeat it.

(PA deleted) Should we have such an article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As said, try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. Here is movement. Polentarion Talk 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC) PS: Hob Gadling, you already received a civility warning by other users related to this talk page. I gave you another one and added one about harrassment.

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)

Hi there. I ask to have scientific skepticism relink to Critical thinking. There is not much of a difference and it would help to avoíd double work. And you may use the Swedish structure there as well.

A thing called "scientific scepticism" does not exist in academia. There is a basic lack of interest by the scientific community to deal with the topics it cares for (see Loxton's complaints, that was the base for the movement) and a lack of interest of actual philosophers and the humanities to take it serious. As Hammer said, "the intellectual forebears of the modern skeptical movement are rather to be found among the many writers throughout history who have argued against beliefs they did not share." That said, the whole business is an amateur affair happening within the movement. Polentarion Talk 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, finally. I already feared I was the only one who wants to discuss this.

I too would have preferred the old article, but I can also accept the existence of two articles, one about the idea and one about the movement. Maybe we can do Scientific skepticism and Skeptical Inquiry if we find good sources on the differences.

The move in September was done in rather brute-force manner by a single determined user. After the fait accompli, a little discussion started, and all we got as defense of the move was, instead of reasoning:

• quotes from Olav Hammer, a historian of religion who specializes in esotericism and does not like skeptics. Of course it is OK to use sources who dislike skeptics, but decisions on an article about skepticism should not rely just on one single source that been specifically picked for that purpose;
• diversionary tactics (Red herring),
• misrepresentations of what other people said (Strawman).

I decided the damage done was not bad enough to justify all those pages of dodging and weaseling that were to be expected if one tried to undo it. I guess others thought the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As said, this article and the main part of its sources are about the movement. If you want to write about Scientific skepticism, feel free to use the redirect. Olav Hammer, Hess, Dyrendal and others are actual scholars. Describing skeptics via third party scholalry sources ist just working along policy. If you need a fanzine based on internal sources, try a blog. Polentarion Talk 18:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Swedish Wikipedia entry is referenced. And by changing the entry from "scientific skepticism" to "skeptical movement", English Wikipedia deviates from I think every other language Wikipedia entry on the subject.--85.194.1.48 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 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)

I'm happy with this article being as it is and scientific skepticism pointing to it. Unfortunately the title 'scientific skepticism' can mean just skepticism as employed by scientists or the movement and going to this article makes it obvious what is mean. With the way it is currently organised people should not be fooled into thinking this article describes part of the scientific method and this article can concentrate on covering just one well defined topic properly. Yes this article used to be like the Swedish one and I agreed with the change as I felt that was easier than keeping arguing as the topic was changed. If desired Scientific skepticism could be turned into a disambiguation page instead of a redirect and the entry in {{Skepticism}} pointed here instead. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But the skeptical movement promotes scientific skepticism, it doesn't just exist for the sake of existing. Reading about scientific skepticism is of course important for any article covering the movement. Classical skeptical books, like The Demon-Haunted World, Why People Believe Weird Things, and Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, tend to tread lightly on the organized movement. The latter book was even written before the movement was formed.85.194.1.59 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Roots of the movement

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)

Maybe someone will find a source that says that. The current sources, Dyrendal and Loxton, say what the article says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

New Atheism Connection Reality Check

"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?

• Dawkins, yes.
• Dennett - I didn't see him lead anything, but he is a CSI fellow.
• Hitchens: No connection with skepticism that I can see.
• Harris: No connection with skepticism that I can see.

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)

I just noticed: this text was added last year by notorious anti-skeptic POV warrior and faker of sources, Polentarion [8]. We can assume he either never looked at the source or did not care. I will just remove the sentence.

To do: Check the rest of Polentarion's edits. --Hob Gadling (talk)

They've gone now so no worries about some war over it :) I don't think they really had any conception of a fixed external reality independent of people which is a problem for science articles but I think they did contribute usefully to some humanities type articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to get in order

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)

That is what I meant when I said "To do: Check the rest of Polentarion's edits". I just remove a few more of his fakes.

He also changed the sentence "Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.[17]" into "Skepticism in general may be deemed part of[..]" But the source does not even mention skepticism, so I think it should go entirely.

Here he removed the entire paragraph "Issues and Odysseys 2016", which has been discussed above. Any more opinions on this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think that all of it is relevant and most of it (if not all) representing views of notable people. It could be shortened around the middle, but I would at least keep the beginning and the conclusion (if not all of it). It also challenges the "geriatric men" stereotype which does not reflect reality (and I'm not that old myself). —PaleoNeonate – 11:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to get Guerilla Skepticism involved here? It seems like this entry is suffering from repetitive attacks from an anti-skeptic. His "restoration of external views" seems to lack references.Paleolithic Brain (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is no objection I might use the Swedish entry, translated, and move back the entry to "scientific skepticim". What do you say?Paleolithic Brain (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not much. It would then have to explain better why it was not considering the actual use of skepticism in scientific enquiry, or else it would be split between two things. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't the original article do that well enough?Paleolithic Brain (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought the original article was a mess and I don't see what you think is good about the Swedish one. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should try to get an expert like Steven Novella to write an article about scientific skepticism?Paleolithic Brain (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm coming around to supporting moving this to scientific skepticism and making the skeptical movement a subsection like in the Swedish Wikipedia. I supported 'skeptical movement' as that was the way Polentarion was pushing the contents and I wanted Polentarion as far away from any science articles as possible as they just made an awful mess of them and took up too much time arguing with and this seemed like a title people wouldn't click on by mistake. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And what is the Swedish Wikipedia entry used to be the English Wikipedia entry. The former was based on the latter.--Paleolithic Brain (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Issues and Odysseys 2016 section

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)

Thanks for noticing. I tried to improve it a bit. Suggestions and improvements welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 23:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How about we revert this article into some previous version?

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)

You could be right. We however also have philosophical skepticism. But this article is known to have been altered by POV pushing editor(s) before and to need work. —PaleoNeonate – 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That editor is gone, so it will not be a problem. I have always been in favor of reverting his vandalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I was alerted to a Facebook discussion ("Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame") on this issue (this article isn't on my watchlist).[9] Doug Weller talk 05:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Skeptic Tank

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)

non-empirical claims

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)

Claims which cannot be verified by empirical methods (e.g. "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.) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Quote dump

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)

I wouldn't call it a dump. It's hardly a comprehensive list of quotes. They're from the few most respected figures in the movement. Quotes are nice for more philosophical concepts. I think they improve the article. MarshallKe (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a point upon which Stonkaments and I agree. The ideas presented here could indeed be retained as summaries, but as it stands this is a textbook example of WP:QUOTEFARM. Generalrelative (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No objection to making them into summaries instead. MarshallKe (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)