Sharon A. Hill hands in her sceptic's card

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.
...

Kudos to MS. Hill.

#WalkAway

#WalkAway

Ms. Hill has not thrown her skepticism in the trash.

"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

"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

You ignore this part. The part that's bolded. Among her many lamentations was the lack of critical thinking.

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.)

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 ?

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).

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.