Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

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).

Well, it depends upon whether or not the intention is to impose a label upon the out-group vs. choosing a label which is acceptable by those in the out-group. You shouldn't expect to notice hostility on the basis of that label, given that it wouldn't ever be directed at you.

I'm not an "opponent" of psi, and I don't think most others in the "skeptic" group are, either. I just don't find that the evidence dictates the perspective most proponents take. I don't think it's helpful to choose a label which perpetuates a straw man.

Why not just leave it at Skeptic vs. Proponent? People don't seem to have a problem using that. "Critical discussions" also seemed to work on the old forum.

Linda

[Laird]

Why I support this change:

As I understand it, the original philosophical skeptics tried as far as possible not to hold any positive beliefs. They challenged all positive beliefs equally because they didn't think that knowledge, even in the form of beliefs, was possible or could be justified in the first place. Modern "skeptics", though, are more likely to challenge beliefs in psi, the paranormal, and the topics discussed on this forum because those beliefs contradict (oppose) their own set of positive beliefs (typically, but not necessarily: atheism, philosophical naturalism, the reducibility of consciousness to physical processes, etc). I think we should avoid a term whose original meaning implies that critics don't hold positive beliefs of their own which themselves can be challenged and critiqued. "Non-proponent" similarly implies that critics of psi are best defined by what they don't believe, rather than by what they do. Moving away from "skeptic" to something like "opponent" thus helps to level the rhetorical playing field.

The "proponent versus opponent" framing is a leveller in another sense: it conveys that one group of people is proposing certain ideas, and another group is opposing them - but which group is which could vary depending on context. Some members of this forum are "proponents" of materialist/atheistic ideas and "opponents" of psi/paranormal/anomalous ideas; likewise, some members of this forum are "proponents" of psi/paranormal/anomalous ideas and "opponents" of materialist/atheistic ideas. (And some members are "proponents" of some psi/paranormal/anomalous ideas and "opponents" of others). There's a pleasing symmetry about it.

I agree with Valmar that "challenger" and the others are not as suitable. They would also break the symmetry in "proponent versus opponent": two words that are such clear and direct antonyms. That they are such strong antonyms is also useful given that they would be naming a forum for challenges and debates: I don't know that hostility is implied, but rather a sense of a vigorous clash of ideas - and if hostility is implied then (1) it cuts both ways given the symmetry and (2) it is no more than is already implied in the existence of a forum where folk with contrasting views can hash out their differences publicly.

[Ninshub]

Well stated Laird.

Why I support this change:

As I understand it, the original philosophical skeptics tried as far as possible not to hold any positive beliefs. They challenged all positive beliefs equally because they didn't think that knowledge, even in the form of beliefs, was possible or could be justified in the first place. Modern "skeptics", though, are more likely to challenge beliefs in psi, the paranormal, and the topics discussed on this forum because those beliefs contradict (oppose) their own set of positive beliefs (typically, but not necessarily: atheism, philosophical naturalism, the reducibility of consciousness to physical processes, etc). I think we should avoid a term whose original meaning implies that critics don't hold positive beliefs of their own which themselves can be challenged and critiqued. "Non-proponent" similarly implies that critics of psi are best defined by what they don't believe, rather than by what they do. Moving away from "skeptic" to something like "opponent" thus helps to level the rhetorical playing field.

The "proponent versus opponent" framing is a leveller in another sense: it conveys that one group of people is proposing certain ideas, and another group is opposing them - but which group is which could vary depending on context. Some members of this forum are "proponents" of materialist/atheistic ideas and "opponents" of psi/paranormal/anomalous ideas; likewise, some members of this forum are "proponents" of psi/paranormal/anomalous ideas and "opponents" of materialist/atheistic ideas. (And some members are "proponents" of some psi/paranormal/anomalous ideas and "opponents" of others). There's a pleasing symmetry about it.

I agree with Valmar that "challenger" and the others are not as suitable. They would also break the symmetry in "proponent versus opponent": two words that are such clear and direct antonyms. That they are such strong antonyms is also useful given that they would be naming a forum for challenges and debates: I don't know that hostility is implied, but rather a sense of a vigorous clash of ideas - and if hostility is implied then (1) it cuts both ways given the symmetry and (2) it is no more than is already implied in the existence of a forum where folk with contrasting views can hash out their differences publicly.

How about "Believers vs. Disbelievers"?

[Laird]

How about "Believers vs. Disbelievers"?

"Disbelievers" was the original suggestion in our private forum, and was rejected because it might be seen to imply that any belief is merely faith- rather than evidence-based, i.e., wishful thinking or at least "religious" thinking. We wanted to avoid that implication.

"Pro Psi vs. Anti Psi"?

"Disbelievers" was the original suggestion in our private forum, and was rejected because it might be seen to imply that any belief is merely faith- rather than evidence-based, i.e., wishful thinking or at least "religious" thinking. We wanted to avoid that implication.

Quite so.

This takes me to a complaint I've made several times, that the BBC which at one time may have been considered as a role model, has discarded its once respected stance, by taking scientific research and covering it exclusively within the area of religion and belief. How such a (once) respected institution has managed to classify science as being a belief is a lesson to us all, and one which we should avoid.

Of course it doesn't do that with all science, but on an arbitrary basis. It is this arbitrary classification which I think we should seek to avoid. In fact I feel that the ideas of belief or disbelief are frequently obstacles which get in the way of reaching understanding. It is necessary to suspend our beliefs in order to properly engage with the subject. Hence ideas of belief or disbelief are the very antithesis of the purpose of this area of the forum.

I wonder if the meaning of the word "belief" has changed somewhat. Online source do indeed seem to associate it with faith, religious or otherwise. My English dictionary (early 20th-century vintage) mentions religion/faith only right at the end of the list of definitions.

[Laird]

"Pro Psi vs. Anti Psi"?

My gut tells me "Mmm, maybe not so much", and my head asks, "OK, but why not?", and then challenges itself to come up with reasons. So, hopefully my gut approves of this list:

1. It's too specific. The debates in this place cover more wide-ranging territory than the subject of psi.
   
2. It might be seen to assume the existence of psi and that some people are in favour of its use and some opposed to its use.
   
3. It focusses on the subject matter rather than on the dynamics of humans interacting over the subject matter (i.e., arguing in favour of, or against, various ideas). Nevermind. That was a misfire.
   

But hey, like I said, this is just me trying to rationalise my gut reaction. The guts/minds of others might reach different conclusions.

Would be interested in your own thoughts on the merits/deficiencies of the "proponent versus opponent" proposal, Chris - if you care to share them.

Would be interested in your own thoughts on the merits/deficiencies of the "proponent versus opponent" proposal, Chris - if you care to share them.

I can see the logic behind it, but I don't think characterising one side as "opponents" is a good idea, even if the site is seen as being primarily for proponents.

I'm still not really sure there's all that much point to the separate forum, though. If the discussion that is pointless and disruptive could be confined to a separate forum, that would be great, but that's a different question.