Anyone adopting an "evidence-based" approach must reluctantly concede that the so-called "skeptic" movement has now just become another cult.
This is unfortunate.
However, the evidence is overwhelming.
For example, the opinions of "leaders" such as Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, or Simon Singh are adopted without question. Anyone who questions these opinions are rubbished and insulted.
There are "sacred texts". The "skeptic" populist Robin Ince always carries the "holy" texts of Carl Sagan, and he just quotes from it in response to any searching question. Indeed, "skeptics" are encouraged to buy texts as part of their "skeptic" education, always to the financial benefit of leaders such as Dawkins, Goldacre, and Singh. There is also pressure to contribute to litigation funds, so as to ensure the legal rights of "skeptics" are protected.
And then there are meetings. Loads of them: monthly rallies held not in churches, but in taverns and private houses in every town and city. There are even conferences, such as "TAM" and "QED", where novice "skeptics" are expected to sit and listen to hours of earnest and rather dull "skeptic" propaganda.
It is all rather worrying.
People are being duped by the rhetoric of "evidence-based thinking" into joining groups where certain positions on, say, alternative health and on religion are simply ridiculed and dismissed.
It is time for the so-called "skeptic" movement to concede it has become the sort of thing it purports to attack: a quasi-religious movement, with leaders, texts, congregations, and mind-control.
The "skeptics" are now just another cult.
[Addendum: please note this was published for April Fools' Day...]
[Second Addendum: please also note that on 1 April, no "spoiler" comments were published unti the mid afternoon. However, the comments below are in order of posting not moderation. Do bear this in mind as you read them: the ones pointing out it was really an April Fools' post were simply not there as the wonderful earnest and ironic ones mounted up.]
Friday, 1 April 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
157 comments:
This is what I've always believed. My mentor, Aprilo de Fausto, has been saying this for years!
Pinch and a punch for the first of the month, and no returns!
April Fool?
Thank goodness someone with authority has finally spoken out on this issue. My only quibble: you have forgotten to excoriate the "wondrous" gospel of Brian "Blessed" Cox, the holy spirit of the atheist quaternity.
I've been trying to get the same message out since this time last year.
What's worrying? I like being in a cult. Don't be so closed-minded.
I'm going to get the popcorn.
Interesting.
Will there be another post where you actually provide some of the "overwhelming" evidence instead of simply stating your opinion is true?
Granted, I don't live in England, so I'm not seeing the skeptics mentioned first hand, but I do get to read some of them.
Here in the US, where atheists are arguably the most reviled minority in the country, the meetings and groups can be a wonderful reprieve from the typical pandering to believers most Americans find in their daily lives. Especially from our politicians.
Apparently you and I visit different skeptic websites. I see tremendous discussion, disagreement and annoying behavior because, well, because what you're saying is not true.
In the olden days, long ago, you had to ally yourself with the local majority or face persecution. In these modern days (post the printing press), rather than ally yourself with the local majority for protection, you can ally yourself with a wider demographic.
The welfare state cancels the need to group with a religious organisation for the basic provision of health and poverty relief, so we are no longer beholden to religion for day to day survival. As day to day survival becomes less of an issue, we can allow the luxury of examining the group we wish to be allied to.
LGBT people, women, racial minorities, geeks, Randians, Socialists, right-wing, left-wing, can find their own group to identify with, and each of these groups will bring far more support world wide than the old groups locally. Scepticism is just one of these groups, and in the modern market economy of ideas (seemingly the only market economy that still functions relatively well) it has just as much chance to survive as any other.
You are probably correct about the cult status of Scepticism in it's current form, it's just as beholden to ideology and the cult of personality as any other group, but it does hold as it's main tenet the idea of evidence. If a sceptical group goes too far and denies obvious evidence, then people are free to join another group. The internet and world communication networks allow people to examine ideas and evidence from a far greater base than ever before.
I think the Sceptical movement may die, but the message it brings, to examine evidence, test sources, learn more, will give it's members the tools to move on to a better grouping, without charismatic figures, or cult status, and make the world a better place.
And a happy April 1 to you too, JoK.
You forgot to mention the secret new initiation rite of all Skeptics in the Pubs in Wales, which involves kneeling with one's knees bent in the opposite direction from the way they'd be bent in church, and sipping of beer and crunching of philosophy. We also have Pale Blue Dots in our eyes - these are taken as closeness to Sagan depending on their size. That's evidence! ;-)
Ha ha Jester of April :)
I call "April Fool"
I'd like to hear about what prompted you to say this. Could you add some background?
"It is time for the so-called "skeptic" movement to concede it has become the sort of thing it purports to attack: a quasi-religious movement, with leaders, texts, congregations, and mind-control."
I'm hoping you have a Modest Proposal to go with this observation...
I call April Fool's.
James Randi cured my gout by the laying on of hands.
Panicked for a moment before I remembered what day it is :-)
I Asked my Sceptics in the Pub leader about this and he told me to tell you that I should be sceptical of your claim.
Nice April 1st trolling.
Nice April 1st trolling.
Thank goodness - No, Thank GOD! - somebody has finally had the courage to take a stand against the rising tide of skepticism!
It has often seemed to me that only I myself and a small but vocal majority of Daily Mail readers were willing (albeit unable) to make the point that you have promulgated so clearly today.
I pray that your dedication to The Cause is not overwhelmed by the BBC's perverted presentations of so-called "News" at the stroke of noon today. It is well known to "Those Who Have Ears To Hear" that the reason for the broadcasting of the chimes of "Big Ben" (also known as "The Knell Of Doom") is to reinforce the auto-hypnosis of they who have chosen to addict themselves to the trumpeting falsehoods of Radio 4.
I hope you will ensure that your wireless is disabled - or at least tuned to some less harmful station - at the hour of noon, lest you be drawn into believing some kind of foolishness.
Kind regards,
Sidcup
House of Lords.
I can't believe that you, the renowned Jack of Kent, legal-beagle extraordinaire, wish to abandon "evidence-based thinking". It would appear that someone has trodden on your tail when you say: certain positions on, say, alternative health and on religion are simply ridiculed and dismissed.
Alternative health? You mean like Chiropractors and Homeopathists, surely not!
Or has someone offended against your religion?
Despite you updating the JoK blog only rarely, I still check it daily because you are, were a hero to those who fight against woo, anti-vaxxers, global-warming denialists et al.
Now, please tell me that this is an early April Fool's day joke.
Please find examples of where people "who questions these opinions [of Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, or Simon Singh] are rubbished and insulted."
The examples must be where valid questions are raised.
Can I recommend the debunkingskeptics forum where the admin has written a paper similar to this blog.
What have you done to Jack of Kent? He would not write such rubbish.
I think I spy an April Fool's Day prank.
Sadly, David, you are too consistent a voice to be as corrupted as this makes you sound.
Points for the effort, I remain unconvinced.
I suspect an April Fool's day prank.
Sadly, David, your voice is too consistent and familiar for me to believe this diversion from your regular opinions.
Nice try, points for effort, I remain unconvinced.
Question Everything.
Well done, the first of the day!
That’s because it’s spelt with a “k”.
More seriously, sCepticism contrasts with dogmatism not by having a better basis for knowledge claims but by rejecting knowledge claims altogether. “It aint necessarily so” might be the sCeptic’s motto: whereas the the sKeptic adds “unless it’s evidence based”. SKeptics have yet to show that “unless it’s evidence based” is any less credulous than “unless it’s in the Bible”, “unless Hahnemann said so” or “unless I feel like it”. Consequently they haven’t established justification for the reverence of Dawkins and Sagan.
Now, answering the question “so what can we know” with “absolutely bugger all” might seem a tad pessimistic on the sCeptic’s part. There is, though, an optimistic form of sCepticism which, as it happens, also centres around evidence.
It doesn’t accept that evidence in any way “supports” a hyothesis. Say I am faced with what looks like a blue object, that looks like it has sleeves, is made of horrible material and has a number on the back. I may hypothesise that it is an Everton shirt. No amount of evidence, documentary, visual, expert, lab will raise the probability of this statement above zero. After all I could be a brain in a vat floating around Alpha Centauri being fed the sense impressions of an Everton shirt by super-intelligent beings.
I can be sure, however, that (whatever it is) there is not a Liverpool shirt in front of me (thank goodness). My hypothesis that it is an Everton shirt may not be true (and I would argue that it cannot be true) but it is abundantly clear that the Liverpool-shirt-hypothesis is utter bollocks. The Everton shirt hypothesis is, at least, workable, is not utter bollocks and, so, is better than the Liverpool shirt hypothesis even if not true.
If, later, I notice a patch of red on the back of the neck of the object I will realise that it is no more an Everton shirt than a Liverpool one. I can formulate a revised hypothesis (“it’s a Chelsea shirt”) that is better than both the Everton shirt and Liverpool shirt hypotheses. In this way I can improve my theories by taking evidence seriously, not to support a proposition but to reject them.
There are criticisms of this approach, good (Google “Duhem and Quine”) and bad (Google “Kuhn”). But it is workable. It can be readily argued not only that (good) scientists proceed on exactly this basis already but that everything we do proceeds on this basis. If you can read this then you are not collapsed in a heap on the floor. You are not collapsed on a heap on the floor because of the negative feedback from the balance mechanisms in your inner ear, rather than any positive theory by your body as to what constitutes “upright”.
To operate in this way I must be open to accept (temporarily) hypotheses that are the better ones, until something even better comes along. But to accept the better hypotheses I must reject those that are worse: certainly those that are utter bollocks. Just like the Everton shirt hypothesis you cannot take the evidence as showing that Dawkins and Sagan as right (they’re not). But just like the Liverpool shirt hypothesis I must accept the verdict of the evidence on “certain positions on, say, alternative health and on religion”. That verdict is that, say, Homeopathy and Creationism are, just like the Liverpool shirt hypothesis utter bollocks.
So, swap the “K” for a “C”; appreciate that Sagan and Dawkins have interesting and useful theories that are imperfect, but the best we have, and accept that Homeopathy and Creationism are utter bollocks that should be simple ridiculed and dismissed.
"The "skeptics" are now just another cult."
Having read the post. Drafted a reasoned response, and posted it, I now notice the date.
You utter, utter, bastard.
Yours
Fished in big-time
Thanks to your revelatory comments, I shall mark this day in my calendar as an important sceptical feast day. From now on, April 1st shall be "the day of revelation" Oh wait, damn it, April 1st is already taken for something else?
Oh come on people this is an obvious April fools. Wakey wakey.
What is the date today?
Oh.
I thought this was just a funny 1st April blog until I remembered that on the Readng SITP site they tell me what I should and should not be skeptical about.
Janice
Ben Whale said:
"I'd like to hear about what prompted you to say this."
The date, perhaps?
I personally have come to loathe the 'skeptical cults' that litter the internet and have created an entire 'Token Skeptic' 'podcast that is devoted to debunking the cult of unquestioning celebrity and toadying that is not only anti-science but anti-rationalism.
I look forward to the day that every person who deigns to call themselves a skeptic has to present (in triplicate) a valid science degree (and not one of those button-pushing 'Computer Science' ones either) rather than the current pack of self-satisfied advertisers, failed retail-store magic store front desk clerks and Arts majors who think that just because they know how to use a semicolon, they hold some kind of authority to pose on a stage pretending that they're best friends with Jack of Kent.
I was at the so-called 'QEDcon'. If it weren't for my power-balance band, I too would have been indoctrinated into this illiberal, misconceived and horrifying cult.
I blame the current governement for not clamping down on this sort of thing sooner, and the previous government for letting it get this bad. Bless.
Guys, guys. Check the date.
"Please find examples of where people "who questions these opinions are rubbished and insulted."
One of the best examples is pharyngula, in the comments. Some of the contributors are loons or trolls but there are some who make perfectly reasoned points that don't entirely support the doctrine of the site. The response that follows is usually little more than abuse.
Ha ha - love the comments. Has nobody looked at the date?
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
I understand now. I just looked at the calendar. I must be slow.
Given how involved 'Jack of Kent' has been in the Skeptic movement., I've got a feeling this might be an april fools joke, but wierdly there are elements of it that I agree with
I forsee a new cult, the cult of Contrarians, led by the Supreme Jack.
Jack of Kent's blogs are usually 'liberal and critical' - this one is OTT.
Granted that some comments to some blogs can also be OTT in their invective against others, and some blogs are seriously unpleasnt in what they attract (and some in what they write, but you can readily avoid those).
But of course, the term 'skeptic' gets used by all and sundry, whether in support of evidence-based approaches or its opposite: ignoring well-established facts and scientific logic (e.g. the climate skeptic cult, the typical defense of homeopathy).
So JoK's final line: ' The "skeptics" are now just another cult.' is a ridiculous statement, conflating together the good and the bad.
April fools!
I was going to think long and hard about this, but then realised that whatever DAG says must be right.
Happy April Fools day!
April Fool!
Graeme
April fool.
Good to see the April Fools tradition is alive and well on the blogosphere as well as in newspapers
You have clearly not been accepted into the higher levels of the cult where it is revealed that the true leaders are not Dawkins or Goldacre but the mighty cats. Our feline overlords secretly run the world using their subservient flock of skeptics to carry out their desires.
Oh beautiful. Best April Fool's so far.
As K Smyth said, "we should indeed think of the children", perhaps today of all days. Personally I think they should be indoctrinated with the Skeptic way of thinking from a very early age in order that they cannot be tempted from the true path. Perhaps some kind of corrective shock collar could be fitted to those children who show signs of independent thinking? Just a thought!
Thank goodness someone has finally spoken out on thus issue. I was watching "Professor" (if he's a real professor, where is his lab coat?) Brian Cox's programme last week and, looking into his beautiful brown eyes, almost began to doubt the effectiveness of homeopathy and to trust instead in the mindless, nihilistic doctrine of science.
Remind me again what day it is today...
It's a good post, but I'm sorry that you are unable to accept Ben Goldacre in your heart. As respected scientists* have shown, all blog posts, though appearing to be written by independent bloggers, are in fact directly inspired by Richard Dawkins in a process called "intelligent commenting". His fingers guide yours on the keyboard (except for spelling mistakes, which are all your fault, don't you forget it).
* electrical engineers, admittedly, but they take a close amateur interest in neurobiology.
I hate April Fools' Day.
This is possibly the most important post I have ever read on this subject. Congratulations on having the courage to speak out on the fascism of so-called "scientific" truth.
Praise be to evidence - I am converted!
Happy 1st April, Jack
Some of us spotted this trend years ago with the antics of the "Amazing" Randi and his groupies.
Whey-hey! It's April the First!!
Best April Fool's ever!
I wonder if this post is connected to the date?
I am a skeptic but I grew up in the transcendental meditation not-a-cult-honest movement. There are some distinct differences..
Happy April Fools Day!
Happy April Fools Day
I'm glad that this has now been recognised and that we can now begin the essential work of returning real evidence based logic to our political and social lives. This new movement, Neo-skepticism, will be egalitarian and for the benefit of all.
There is of course an entry fee for necessary administrative work. And you'll have to buy your own robes. And I'm to be addressed as "Grand High Poobah" at all times. But other than that...
Oh yeah, and there's the thing about attendant virgins...
This is a bloody outrage this is! Just because I have a small candlelit shrine of Richard Dawkins in my house and I say "oh my Dawkins" does not mean I worship him!
Pure drivel of the First degree!
This is nothing more than the jealous rantings of a man who participates in a profession that has historically aspired to the wearing of wigs over the glorious and natural locks of Messrs Dawkins, Goldacre, or Singh!
If the author ceased his frivolous bloggery and pro bono activities, and actually did something that gave him a paycheque, he might just be able to scrape enough cash together for a decent hairstyle. (And, perhaps a couple of jars of hair care product and some tips or assistance on how to maintain said hairstyle? I'm sure Mr. Singh could oblige...)
Until he does, Jack will never truly belong to any skeptical community and will continue to be a fool and frequent all the wrong pubs!
[ psst. It's 1st April ]
Hurrah for standing up to these rationalists with their "Objective reality" and "verifiable facts", which as everyone knows, have an inbuilt left wing bias.
Why just the other day that George Monbiot was hammering on about some nonsense that coal fired plants produce more radiation that similar sized nuclear plants.
NUCLEAR PLANTS RUN ON EUROPEAN DEATH RAYS FROM BRUSSELS. THIS WAS AGREED AT KYOTO. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. END OF.
Let truthiness march on!
It's about time someone spoke out against these so-called 'rational' thinkers with their smarty-pants formulae for explaining the universe. For too long, the curse of rational thinking has held back the likes of us Homeopathic Tarot-card Water Diviners from making the kind of living to which we're entitled. Down with Science, I say...
I think there's more than a grain of truth in your observations. If I may cite a couple of podcasts to illustrate:
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is generally even-handed, exploring new age theories and unscientific claims, and mostly allowing the flaws to speak for themselves. Once the flaws are demonstrated, they tend to crow rather, but not until their argument has been demonstrated.
On the other hand, the Pod Delusion starts from the point of ridiculing each subject it approaches, with aggressive and hostile questioning, and not attempting to understand whether there is a point of view. James O'Malley's style is more 'hectoring the interviewee into submission' than 'giving them enough rope to hang themselves'. If he was half as clever as he thinks he is, his podcast would be enlightening, rather than embarrassing.
I would like to see a quieter, more analytical approach, and less of the drum-beating.
It's rather embarrassing that only a couple of people here have noticed the date...
Hah, you got me there. For a moment, anyway.
I hope Simon Singh sues you for libel after this.
Dates mean nothing to these so-called 'Skeptics'.
I declare that criticizing the skeptics movement is now a cult!
True satire unpicks the veneer of our slight worries, roots out the messy, dark substrates and lays them out in all their stinking glory for our fear, wonder and delight.
This is true satire. Hat off, sir.
I refuse to accept the premise of this post. Skepticism is not a movement, but a tactic.
Everyone does understand that this is an April Fool post don't they?
I have no trouble with the idea requiring evidence on which to accept the existence of something. I do, however, have trouble with starting from the position "this doesn't exist, so any attempt to demonstrate it must be a fake".
I don't find convincing the idea that if you can produce the same effect by fakery, then fakery is the only explanation for a phenomenon. We should start by asking the question "does this exist?" not by assuming it doesn't.
I certainly think there is a question about when "skepticism" turns into scientism. I suspect it begins when you start from assuming you already know the answer.
That being said, I find I agree with the skeptics much of the time – simply because they can provide the evidence. But I do think there are fringe areas where we should not be so damn cocky. And I hate that "k". What's wrong with being a plain ordinary sceptic?
Oh the irony of your irony...
But I thought April Fools jokes were supposed to be unlikely?
You chaps know this is an April Fool's, right?
I think April 1st has reached a cult-like status.
I am particularly sceptical about anything published on April 1st.
It just goes to show, you can't be too careful.
Good post, but... I'm skeptical.
I am an Aromatherapy Paramedic and I watch every interview with 'Professor' Brian Cox eagerly awaiting the time he sees fit to mention the time I was on hand to save him from a quantum physics based anxiety attack. Remember my voice Brian? "0.0004ml Arnica, STAT!"
A good date on which to flex your Swiftian muscles
I love this day, it's the best day of the year! Sceptics skeptics shmeptics.
Only the most extreme cults carry out mass suicides. The skeptic movement's already had several attempts - not very successful until now, but we live in hope. My own attempt with a large bottle of Arsenicum Bromatum C200 did little but quench my thirst :(
Date posted: 01/04
Hoho.
You should be stoned as an blasphemer!
Turn around Jack of Kent... it's not too late to be saved..
Yeah.....anyone notice the date?
er April fool?
And on this of all days. Tsk.
Hard truths for a sceptic to accept, but your followers will never desert you Jack of Kent. Hail Hail, Jack of Kent!
All evidence points towards the fact that today is April Fools Day. Or should I be more cynical?
I have read this post, and all of its comments, and I have come to the conclusion that you are all awful.
Signed,
Martin
What an odd date to make this post.
This is amazing. Only in the Uk could such a thread go on for so long without giving the game away. The yanks don't get it - they have not been initiated into the inner sanctum of the cult. Only the truly enlightened will understand.
Am I the only one to notic the date!!!
I always follow the evidence, and I would recommend everyone else to do so.
Unless it gets boring, or starts to make me feel uncomfortable. Those are obvious exceptions.
Ben Whale,
I think what prompted him to say this is the date.
April fools, everybody :p
APRIL FOOL!
:-P
The priests in my house have a Richard Dawkins dart board.It makes up for the lack of aim in our rhetoric.
More of this sort of thing!
Having been blessed with a strong streak of skepticism myself I have been disturbed by the cult status adopted by some on the net. By telling them that ironically they have now fallen into the trap of "belonging " hopefully some new ideas may emerge from the mire. To think independently is one of the great gifts. Clearly I am biased as to who gave us this gift. But it is to be treasured at all cost.
Er... Would the date of this particular post be relevant here, or am I just imagining things?
So it's 1/4 and JoK thinks he's funny. April fools pranks are pretty lame when done well, and this one is clearly too subtle for most of the commenters above. I think I'll shut down my netwrok connection next year, this kind of crap just raises my blood pressure for no gain.
I can remember talking about just this subject with my close friend L Ron a few years ago to the day, while we relaxed aboard his yacht the "Saucy Xenu". I'm sure it can't have been a co-incidence that it was the very same day.
Thanks for exposing the network of links in Big Skepta. Yet another triumph for your blog!
Well said, O/P.
Without deriving each of our beliefs from first principal, we are forced to put our faith in authorities. Whether these be scientists or quacks, that leap of faith remains the same.
Naturally,I would rather trust a scientist than a quack, but this choice is based on my own prejudices and desires. I have never fully tested every claim made by every quack, so I cannot say for definite they are all wrong. Still, I happily choose to believe so.
It benefits me to take the scientific approach. If it benefits others to take the quack approach, then who am I to judge?
Anyone who has not rigorously tested each of their own firmly-held beliefs is relying on faith, not science.
Great Stuff Guys!! - bogbrush
'Doubting everything and believing everything are two equally convenient solutions that guard us from have to think' Henri Poincare
I've been saying this for a few years now but get denounced by people not actually listening or reading what I'm saying/writing. Robert Anton Wilson wrote about this at length (though he was VERY misunderstood when he used peculiar fringe examples to make a point about how we make sense of the world). I think if you look at these movements - theist, atheist, socialist, fascist or any other hermetically sealed ideology - what's at the bottom of it is a psychological need for certainty in an uncertain universe.
Is today being April 1st anything to do with this blog? Aren`t areas of Kent so close to Ruritania that ancient customs forgotten elsewhere are still being enacted as they were before blogging was even a tweet in the web`s eye?
This is something I am concerned about too (as detailed in my blog entry The Sceptic Experiment). As a rationalist I can't help become worried about some of the behaviour being displayed in the scientific community.
Good points well made, JoK! Your epiphany reminds me of Robert Carroll's conversion to Christianity a few years ago, which (if my memory serves me well) occurred on exactly this date!
Notes date of post.
Concedes the underlying serious point that kneejerk skepticism (rather than evidence-based skepticism) is horribly prevalent and worrying.
This seems to be only a smidge away from the tiresome "atheism is just another religion" post.
People making this observation often sit back, and beam with pride at their own cleverness.
But it's not original and it's not clever.
Rational people simply require evidence, because their basic mode is doubt. That's all that skepticism is. The religious start with a belief. They trust in something and then construct a world around that belief.
Skeptics challenge authority, and like to kick the tyres of commonly held wisdoms. Anyone who takes anything on faith is not a skeptic but a believer.
Yes, taking stuff on faith can be done by scientists just as easily as worshippers of morally dubious invisible sky-fairies. Real skepticism demands the rational challenging of all orthodoxies without fear of favour. The very idea of a skeptical orthodoxy is an oxymoron.
C.
"For example, the opinions of "leaders" such as Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, or Simon Singh are adopted without question. Anyone who questions these opinions are rubbished and insulted."
To be fair the only place I have ever actually seen this happen is CiF, and gods help us all if we're going to start taking that freakshow as representative of anything (I speak here as a frequent commenter.)
Still, on the overall sentiment I don't think you're alone. This post (and the comments) is well worth reading:
http://andrewhickey.info/2010/07/19/whats-your-heresy/
I, for one, welcome our new Skeptic Overlords!
As another native of Kent, I am grateful to finally be able to proudly say, on this blog: I have seen the Big Black Cat of Kent. It is currently residing in my home and it goes through scratching posts at an alarming rate.
Please be my new prophet. I have my own tambourine and everything.
Kind Regards,
Jessica L.(Mrs), Ramsgate.
;-P
Ahh, I see what you did there...
Megalolz at some of the genuinely bewildered comments.
REALLY?
I smell an April fool...
You forgot to mention that skeptics even have their own quasi-religious holiday, which, I believe, is just before the end of the tax year.
April Fool?
I only just realised what day it was. April Fool?
It's gone 12 now: time to enlighten the nutjobs?
Shit, we've been rumbled! We'll have to bring forward the mass suicide to next Tuesday.
Damn you, Jack of Kent!
Congratulations to JOK for speaking out. After the skeptics failed mass homeopathic suicide attempt last year I though the cult had lost its way somewhat.
Hopefully this article will help rally the troops!
So as a leading figure in Westminster Skeptics, does that make you Tom Cruise?
folk that bang on about not believing stuff can be just as tedious as folk banging on about believing stuff
I think we need a double-blind, properly randomised trial to decide. Oh wait, that's what they want us to think.
I am glad you have seen that, it would have been easy for you to have been one of their false Gods.
I never understood the notion that I could not be a sceptic and practice Woo at the same time. Woo is a great comfort to me right now.
So true.
Dawkins' brand of fundamentalist atheism is just as inflexible and intolerant as the religious equivalent he attacks. The man is offensive.
[Addendum: please note this was published for April Fools' Day...]
Seriously folks.
does anyone know about that old thing where April 1st is a kind of a day where people do silly stuff and if you take it seriously you are deemed to be an "April fool"?
Do people still do that?
How dare we ask questions?
Yes, I can see the post is an April Fool. Still: congratulations on seeing the light - under the cloak of a 'joke', you're finally saying out loud what most of us already knew. "Live Long and Prosper" [insert image of Vulcan blessing here]
Simon Singh burst into my house last night, screamed 'barm cake!' at the top of his lungs, ate my hamster, threw a cupboard through my window, crawled out through the broken glass, then wandered into the darkness scraping his knuckles along the floor. Skeptics are dangerous,
A wonderful post for this 'time of year'.
CELOCANT said:
Where’s Shirley Ghostman when you want him … especially on April the first!
April Fool or not, you actually make a rather valid point.
I once read an anecdote on a blog where someone was countering the argument of a sKeptic. His quote, which he claimed, without any evidence to the fact, that his father had told him:
"Beware of those who claim to have all the answers, they are either ignorant, arrogant or stupid, either way they are a danger to both themselves and others".
I tend to agree that the cult of sKepticism is as dangerous as any other cult, which blindly follow teachings which are dogmatic, fundamentalist and intolerant.
Well done if you meant it, but April 1st gives you a get out clause if you didn't.
Interestingly enough, one year ago today you posted something quite a bit less foolish, and yet bogus at the same time.
It was only March 31 when I commented yesterday... later in the day I realized, oh s**t it was 4/1 when he posted...
LOL
The traits you described & attributed to the skeptic movement are characteristics of religions, not cults.
A cult is a high-demand organization, religious or non-religious in nature, with claims to separate, special knowledge and a route to "salvation" (what salvation means varies by the cult but may include heaven, forgiveness, resurrection, reincarnation, a trip on the Hale Bop comet, etc.)
The word CULT has a specific meaning and it isn't "anything I dislike, don't understand, or don't trust."
Try to use it appropriately, please?
- a cult survivor
As a skeptic, I have to point out that there is no real evidence that the first of April is April Fool's Day and that we have to be silly. It's just a belief.
It's quite ironic that in his send-up, Jack of Kent inadvertently makes some very valid points about the problems with the sceptic movement.
Let's take it paragraph by paragraph:
"For example, the opinions of "leaders" such as Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, or Simon Singh are adopted without question. Anyone who questions these opinions are rubbished and insulted."
Yes, they are.
"Indeed, "skeptics" are encouraged to buy texts as part of their "skeptic" education, always to the financial benefit of leaders such as Dawkins, Goldacre, and Singh."
Yes, they are.
"There are even conferences, such as "TAM" and "QED", where novice "skeptics" are expected to sit and listen to hours of earnest and rather dull "skeptic" propaganda."
Yes, there are. And yes, they are dull and earnest.
"Certain positions on, say, alternative health and on religion are simply ridiculed and dismissed."
Yes, they are.
"The "skeptics" are now just another cult."
A slight exaggeration but on the whole - yes, they are.
What this April Fool does prove is that sceptics (and left-wingers in general) are now officially beyond parody.
De omnibus dubitandum say I thinking of the mischievous Mr Green.
Here's one from the archives
i know Jack's post was meant in jest, but I still wonder if he didn't mean to have a bit of a dig at the skeptic movement along the way.
A couple of months ago he posted a tweet saying how Ben Goldacre's Bad Science forum was "full of w*nkers".
http://www.mediafire.com/?1yc6s5dplmv5b9n
Seemed a bit uncalled for at the time.
Hope JoK isn't switching sides on us.
Apart from giving everyone a laugh is JOK trying to make some subtle points to the skeptic cult er i mean community?
This jollity is all well and good, but where can I get the "Carl Sagan 'holy' texts" like what Robin Ince has?
Two in the margin should do the trick, so it can be put in a ring binder.
I feel like the little square in flatland being spoken to by an invisible flying apple...
I'm actually pleased to admit that I swallowed it and spent some minutes crafting a comment. Yes, I was a little surprised at the content, but I assumed that JoK was simply exaggerating to make a point. I felt my comment made a useful observation anyhow and I hit "publish" and be damned.
I went on to several other April Fool postings during the course of the day and made serious comments there too. After that initial embarrassment it just became more and more fun. Please don't do it again.
OK, you got me! I must admit I was suspicious, but thought "what the hell" and commented anyway...
As the 152nd post, I'm sure this will not be read, but what you said in your post is what Mr Justice Burton said in Grainger v Nicholson. (Eg, scroll through and look for Darwinism).
I appreciate that some people may have thought that the whole case was an April fool whilst others merely disagreed with aspects of the legal analysis.
I'm afraid the irony is lost on me. An excellent accidental bullseye.
April fool or not, I agree with the post. Scepticism is going too far the other way now.
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
Post a Comment