Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

[Ninshub]

So the boys in the backroom have been discussing the idea of renaming that subforum with the more neutral label "Proponent vs. Opponent Discussions", and we thought we'd query the forum itself.

Thoughts? Feelings? Sensations?

What about Proponent vs. Non-proponent? "Opponent" seems to suggest some degree of hostility (in the same way "Skeptic" seems to). I don't know if that's what you're going for.

Linda

[Ninshub]

Yes, everyone is welcome to propose alternatives if they think they can come up with something better.

[Ninshub]

What about Proponent vs. Non-proponent?

Personally I'm not crazy about "non-proponent". But I would have no problem with a synonym for opponent that doesn't imply "hostility" (if that's the vibe the word gives off - personally, again, I don't see that but I'm open to dissenting views).

Thesaurus gives me "challenger", "critic" (although I find that one too vague, and perhaps implying  - like the "skeptic" label - that proponents are non-critical or non-skeptical), "disputant", "antagonist".

"Challenger" isn't bad.

"Challenger" feels clunky. Along with the others.

"Skeptic" is the only one that makes any kind of sense with regards to Psi, probably because of the history between the two.

Or maybe that's just me.

"Opponent" feels fine, because that's what skeptics are ~ opposed to the ideas of Psi, opposed to the views of Psi proponents.

One problem is that according to the guidelines, "Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions" isn't what that forum is meant to contain. It's meant to be the place for the expression of blanket scepticism/denial of the whole subject of psi. Admittedly I can't think of a snappy name for that.

If I understand correctly, if a leading sceptic and a leading proponent wanted to debate a particular subject in the manner of Hyman and Honorton, the appropriate place for that would be the main psi forum, not the forum currently called "Proponent vs. Opponent Discussions".

[Laird]

One problem is that according to the guidelines, "Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions" isn't what that forum is meant to contain. It's meant to be the place for the expression of blanket scepticism/denial of the whole subject of psi. Admittedly I can't think of a snappy name for that.

I think you might be misunderstanding the guidelines, Chris. All they say is that if one's aim is blanket scepticism/denial, then the place to express that is the SvP forum. They don't say that this is what defines the SvP forum.

In fact, what defines the SvP forum is its hosting of challenges/debates/discussions between those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum. So...

If I understand correctly, if a leading sceptic and a leading proponent wanted to debate a particular subject in the manner of Hyman and Honorton, the appropriate place for that would be the main psi forum, not the forum currently called "Proponent vs. Opponent Discussions".

...no: the forum currently abbreviated as SvP, and now proposed to be renamed based on a replacing of "skeptic" with "opponent", is, indeed, the best place for a debate along the lines of the Hyman v Honorton debate.

Whilst it is the only place where "blanket denial" is accepted on Psience Quest, it is neither encouraged nor defining of that subforum.

I think you might be misunderstanding the guidelines, Chris. All they say is that if one's aim is blanket scepticism/denial, then the place to express that is the SvP forum. They don't say that this is what defines the SvP forum.

In fact, what defines the SvP forum is its hosting of challenges/debates/discussions between those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum. So...


...no: the forum currently abbreviated as SvP, and now proposed to be renamed based on a replacing of "skeptic" with "opponent", is, indeed, the best place for a debate along the lines of the Hyman v Honorton debate.

Whilst it is the only place where "blanket denial" is accepted on Psience Quest, it is neither encouraged nor defining of that subforum.

In that case I have been misunderstanding.

If there's not meant to be discussion in the main section between "those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum" I'm not sure I should be posting there!

[Laird]

In that case I have been misunderstanding.

If there's not meant to be discussion in the main section between "those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum" I'm not sure I should be posting there!

Admittedly, the boundaries are fuzzy. The SvP forum is simply intended to be more of a debate-intensive forum: a forum to which, if, say, you wanted to challenge "the other side" with a juicy piece of evidence, you would be more drawn. Sure, you could post that evidence in one of the ECP subforums, but you make your intent clearer by posting it in SvP: that is, as a challenge or invitation to debate/discussion with the natural "opponents" of the idea/position best suggested/supported by your evidence.