Talk:Scientific skepticism

what makes it a "movement"

The article seems a mish mash of various topics related to skeptical thinking, but where is the "movement"? Of course as modern people have generally become better educated they have (mostly) applid critical thought to discard various outlandish claims. Is that a movement? This should be answered and addressed in the opening sentences of the article. (Or perhaps the article title should be changed) Gjxj (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to echo this same question. It seems to me like the main subject of the article is scientific skepticism, as the references supporting the idea of a movement are few and far between. It appears that the only source making prominent reference to scientific skepticism as a movement is Loxton's 2013 article "Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?" [1] Another source says "I’m part of a growing community (some would even call it a movement) consisting of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who value science and critical thinking", which is rather unconvincing.[2] A few of the other sources cited in support of claims about "the movement" don't in fact make any reference to there being a skeptical movement at all.[3][4] Plus, as mentioned above in the previous talk section, none of the other language versions of this article on Wikipedia call it a movement—they're all titled the equivalent of "Scientific skepticism".

I think the article for New Atheism could help guide us here. New Atheism has also been described by some as a movement, and the article includes discussion of those who consider it a movement, but it doesn't give the idea undue prominence by e.g. including it in the article title, or defining the movement and the idea separately. I propose we do the same here—rename the article to scientific skepticism, and remove separate definitions of the idea and the movement, as well as any other potentially undue emphasis on the idea as a movement. Stonkaments (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that scientific skepticism is better name for this article. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The article covers pre-scientific skepticism and skepticism of topics that effectively cannot be studied by science. It also touches on pseudoskepticism. MarshallKe (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like that information could potentially be better suited for Skepticism. The focus of this article is specifically scientific skepticism. Stonkaments (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: Do you object to me listing the change to Scientific skepticism at WP:Requested moves? (The target title already exists as a redirect, so I can't do the move myself.) Stonkaments (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Go ahead. MarshallKe (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

MarshallKe Stonkaments Thi Hey everyone (It seems Gjxj isn't on Wikipedia anymore). I've a history and philosophy of science degree: my research work is on the skeptical movement (only written in French for now). I just wanted to say that I totally support the fact that it is a movement (...), I guess the same way feminism is a social movement even if we can agree with it without being actually part of the movement. When I started to work on the subject I was happy that this page was still called Skeptical movement, since scientific skepticism is often mistaken for something else. Yeah we can support Paul Kurtz philosophy without being part of the movement, but he still created a global movement (that the Comite Para became part of even if they were already there), and most people in it right now actually don't know Kurtz's philosophy. I'm not here to fight, the page actually talk about the skeptical movement anyway (even if the first lines let think the subject might be larger).

MarshallKe: Yeah Kurtz wanted a movement that don't only deal with science and parascience subjects, but we still can call it scientific skepticism => it only means that the skeptical inquiry process/work is inspire by science. EpisteMax (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant quotes

It would be nice to find appropriate spots for the inclusion of these quotes:

• "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall, physicist
• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford, mathematician and philosopher
• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell, British polymath

Valjean (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)