Seems familiar

On the issue of qualification, I see a problem with limiting discussion to authority figures. After all, do we limit discussions on evolution to PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne and tell other interested people they aren’t qualified to comment? Do we need a degree in psychology before we express an opinion of TV psychics? Would there be anything someone without so much as a college diploma would be “qualified” to comment on?

Perhaps I’m reading too much into it but it seems to me that if all manner of folk are writing on behalf of nonsense, then we can have all manner of folk dismissing it as such.

I think what I was saying deserves more time is the issue of what makes someone “qualified” to discuss science & skepticism. Unfortunately, I’m backed up with blog topics because I’m backed up with work, so I’ll have to revisit that another time!

What drives you all to keep posting? Fame, fortune, OCD?

1 – There are no spokespeople for skepticism. I am one who considers skeptical activism part of my job, but I speak only for myself and the organizations whose members agree that I may represent them. Those organizations are not “skepticism”; they are groups of people who chose to promote it.

2 – In science, there are no authorities. One does not need special qualifications to argue rationally or promote rational thinking.

3 – The desire to be a skeptic does not make one a rational thinker, nor does repeating or citing the conclusions drawn by others.

All of that said, this issue is obviously more complicated than simply “anyone can do it”, and perhaps deserves a more detailed discussion across blog posts.

http://scepticalbanter.com/?p=256

I realized that I did leave rather a lot of questions in my comment. I will consider writing into the magazine, but thanks for you consideration.

I am aware that you are not connected to the mag, however, I do find you to be
a) evenhanded/balanced/ considered
b) a good spokesperson for skepticism

Just listened to your NZ think tank and thought that you did a great job of interviewing/ facilitating ( perhaps you could run workshops on setting up skeptical orgs).

On politics – I hear you

You’ve incited me to pen something later today!

Ann! Hello! You should be the one writing about being a blogger, you’ve been doing it for WAY longer! Yes, the ‘skeptical gods’ does come with… errm, cargo-cult. I’ve regrettably fallen for such in the past and became sadly aware of clay feet on the pedestals. :/ Well put.

Sean – just read the Miller letter you mentioned again – I think you have a good summation of it overall. I wouldn’t change much there. What that letter-to-the-editor also says:

“I have a new concern on top of the old ones now. I am concerned that ‘we don’t want dry academic articles – this is not a peer reviewed and academic journal’. I agree we don’t need to have dry articles, but why is there a problem using the highest level of scientific writing (peer-reviewed research) in The Skeptic? This statement worries me greatly…I am quite sure that if you wish to dumb down the Skeptics, this ignorant approach is all that is needed.”

I’d point out that the editorship has changed since that edition; that the previous editor who wrote that aim didn’t seem to get a right-to-reply (perhaps they might in the future) and, as you said, Miller (and any others out there) are given an opportunity to submit. However, you raise other very good questions you raise and I’d send them in as a letter to the editor yourself?

Of course, there may well be a new editorial focus with the ‘changing of the guard’ as it were (I guess the editorial says ‘indication of the editor’s preference’ in regards to some sections, so)… then, I’d probably wait for a few more editions to see if all of the accusations she made were really fair about the progress of the magazine anyway?

I’m not associated with that publication (beyond helping with one edition at the start of the year, which I was thanked for in that editorial) and I’ve had quite enough of ‘skeptical politics’ for … well, probably a lifetime at this rate and I’m loath to get involved in any more.

In reference to Theo – there was a letter criticizing skeptic magazine and him specifically for his article Barnett’s Blunders. While Dr Miller may have some good points, I found her letter to be a bit emotional and a bit “why won’t you print my quality article”.

She has a point I think with rudeness in a magazine article. But on the other hand Theo was illustrating an Ad hom fallacy or rather the point at which an insult isn’t committing and ad-hom fallacy.

Should the Skeptic be sourcing articles from qualified people? What defines qualified (ie Theo is a teacher if I’m not mistaken and has devoted considerable time to logical fallacies) does the Skeptic need to retain the services of a professor of philosophy to write such an Article? Where in all this, is their room for the critically thinking layperson, the blogger who has time to combat anti-vaxx nonsense when the paediatrician doesn’t ?

Is broadening your audience by appealing to less serious skeptical issues ie ghost hunting, “dumbing it down”.

I did learn one thing though – the specific definition of Cretin.

I think there’s a risk in deeming that to be actively sceptical requires some serious level of dedication to research and/or science and/or history. That suits some people who see scepticism as their “job” or “second job”, but I think (hope) there’s room for armchair sceptics to voice their opinions too.

I’d suggest that expressing opinions outside of one’s area of expertise is not itself a problem. The problems arise when one refuses to reassess that opinion when faced with quality information from someone with the relevant expertise.