Sharon A. Hill hands in her sceptic's card

10 Replies, 2465 Views

The erstwhile sceptical blogger Sharon A. Hill has some pretty scathing comments on the "sceptical movement" in a blog post explaining why she doesn't want to be called a sceptic any more:
https://sharonahill.com/2018/07/10/pleas...a-skeptic/

Several people have asked me to explain why I now reject “Skeptic” to describe myself. In short, the label is limiting and is overwrought with mistaken assumptions of being elitist, arrogant, and closed-minded. Unfortunately, being labeled a Skeptic sends a signal to some to tune out what I might say by default because of the association with having a dismissive, know-it-all attitude, defeating any efforts at meaningful exchange over questionable claims.
...
[-] The following 9 users Like Guest's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel, Brian, woethekitty, tim, The King in the North, Laird, Ninshub, Valmar, Kamarling
Kudos to MS. Hill.
[-] The following 2 users Like Oleo's post:
  • Brian, tim
#WalkAway
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - Werner Heisenberg. (More at my Blog & Website)
(2018-07-11, 04:42 PM)Jim_Smith Wrote: #WalkAway

Ms. Hill has not thrown her skepticism in the trash.
[-] The following 3 users Like Steve001's post:
  • Brian, Ninshub, fls
"I hope I see the day when skepticism gets a reboot and catches on with a public tired of lies, scams, and nonsense. Until then, I continue to be skeptical as warranted, but please don’t call me a Skeptic"

Put that in your Davey Crockett hat and smoke it, Steve Wink
(This post was last modified: 2018-07-11, 05:46 PM by tim.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes tim's post:
  • Valmar
(2018-07-11, 05:44 PM)tim Wrote: "I hope I see the day when skepticism gets a reboot and catches on with a public tired of lies, scams, and nonsense. Until then, I continue to be skeptical as warranted but please don’t call me a Skeptic"

Put that in your Davey Crockett hat and smoke it, Steve Wink

You ignore this part. The part that's bolded. Among her many lamentations was the lack of critical thinking.
(This post was last modified: 2018-07-11, 08:01 PM by Steve001.)
Well, it's the label she's rejecting, not scepticism itself. But the reason she's rejecting the label is the behaviour of some people who identify themselves as sceptics, so it's not a purely semantic point.

Perhaps one could say that what she's rejecting is pseudo-scepticism. Though her objection seems to be more about the style of sceptics than the substance of their arguments. (Personally, I'd say that the worst thing about pseudo-sceptics is the poor quality of their arguments.)
[-] The following 4 users Like Guest's post:
  • Brian, Valmar, Ninshub, Kamarling
(2018-07-11, 07:55 PM)Steve001 Wrote: You ignore this part. The part that's bolded. Among her many lamentations was the lack of critical thinking.

Yes, I read that. In my opinion, they (sceptics) lack honest critical thinking in the subject I'm most interested in and PSI in general. On a lighter note and just joshing, have I nailed it with the Davey Crockett hat, then ?
[-] The following 3 users Like tim's post:
  • Brian, Valmar, Oleo
Since I've been following these matters - more years than I care to remember - I've always thought that skeptics who post in forums or have their own, often angry, blogs are ideological to the point of being evangelical about their worldview. There's also a certain arrogance associated with their delivery which comes, no doubt, from the confidence of knowing that their views are supported by the majority in science and academia. The "no evidence, ever" assertion is repeated over and over again by so many "experts" who are usually people who consider themselves expert in their own field but have no background or familiarity with psi and related subjects. Yet those assertions are picked up and repeated by the general population of those who consider themselves "skeptics", as though that label alone puts them in a class of well-informed thinkers. Actually, they are only informed by their ideological bias.

Now, I'm not blind to the parallels with politics here with those on the right claiming to be victims of the same kind of pseudo-intellectual arrogance from leftist liberals who dominate academia and the media. The difference, as I see it, is that there is a false equivalency there: those parallels are more appropriate to an atheist vs religious confrontation where there are ideological positions on both sides. Most psi proponents that I know are not coming at these issues from a religious or ideological commitment but from being convinced by the evidence available (many actually started out as skeptics). If (materialist) skeptics were really so concerned with the evidence then they would take the time to familiarise themselves with the evidence. I see no evidence that they do (repetition intentional).
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
(This post was last modified: 2018-07-11, 09:20 PM by Kamarling.)
[-] The following 7 users Like Kamarling's post:
  • OmniVersalNexus, Brian, woethekitty, Ninshub, Valmar, Doug, Oleo
(2018-07-11, 09:17 PM)Kamarling Wrote: If (materialist) skeptics were really so concerned with the evidence then they would take the time to familiarise themselves with the evidence. I see no evidence that they do (repetition intentional).

I think it depends what you mean by sceptics. Some on the sceptical side do familiarise themselves with the evidence, but - perhaps unsurprisingly - they tend not to be the ones who adopt a blanket "This is all rubbish" approach.
[-] The following 3 users Like Guest's post:
  • Brian, Ninshub, Valmar

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)