Please post your suggestions for changing the Skeptic Group's mission statement.

[beam me up scottie]

I wasn't completely on board with this until today. If non-skeptics cannot respect the members of this group, they should not be allowed to post here. Correct me if I'm wrong, current and former mods, but I think making our ms more specific would make your job easier as well.

From my previous post on this subject:

If we want to get rid of the disruptors permanently, we'll need to change our mission statement.

DU skeptics have always prided themselves on our open door policy while posters in other groups adamantly ban any and all dissent/ers.

We've discussed this subject before and most skeptics decided that we didn't need another echo chamber on DU, we were not afraid to have our ideas challenged then, and we're not afraid now.

Unfortunately, some recent visitors did not come here to discuss or challenge our ideas, they used our open invitation to disrupt.

Perhaps it is time to remove that option for chronic offenders, posting in this group (or any group) is a privilege, not a right.

Changing our mission statement does not mean we have to ban non-skeptics, we can still have discussions with respectful visitors.

This skeptic is just sick of having to ignore disruptors in our own group.




Here is our current mission statement:

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-12-04 09:58 PM

Welcome to the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group

This Group is for the discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner.

Similar but more specific, the Atheist/Agnostic Group MS:

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-04 04:22 PM

Welcome to the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group

Although anyone is welcome to participate, the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group is a place where atheists and agnostics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion on politics, free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities. In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs. Those who do believe in a deity should be aware that the underlying assumption for discussions in this Group is that either "god" does not exist or that the existence of "god" is in doubt. If you are offended by such notions, you probably should not participate in this Group.

Most of our recent visitors post in the Astrology Group, let's look at their ms:

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-12-04 09:47 PM
Original message
Welcome to the DU Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group

This Group is for those who wish to positively explore issues having to do with Astrology, metaphysics & spirituality, homeopathy/alternative medicine and healing, Ascension, and other subjects having to do with holistic physical and spiritual growth & traditions.

This group is intended as a positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is not intended as a place to argue the merits of beliefs or choices.

Excerpts from the Feminists Group, they have gone much further and actually listed subjects that cannot be discussed, and stated that unless you agree with certain core beliefs, "then this is not the group for you."

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-07-05 03:51 PM

Welcome to the DU Feminists Group

***

About this Group:

- This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

I do not believe that participants in this group need be hard core skeptics, consider the fact that liberal christians are skeptical of other religious beliefs and cults, and not all alt-med advocates blindly parrot Kryon's latest sermon or own Orgone Generators.

Surely we can come up with a happy medium?

[mr blur]

1. I do feel that a little more action from the Mods would help.

Why are the arseholes allowed to disrupt here when they aren't elsewhere?

I'm not afraid of having my views honestly challenged but I am pissed off with seeing half of some threads on here marked "Ignored".

[Heddi]

2. I agree, and the poll I posted the other night

had a lot more written but took it out after fearing that it would fame the flames of trollish behaviour.

But what I *DID* have written was much like you have above--other groups are very explicit in what can and cannot be discussed there. There are groups where WE (the frequenters of this forum) can post an innocuous, innocent question and have that thread locked JUST BECAUSE it is one of US posting.

Like you, I don't want to stifle conversation, and there are several non-skeptics who come here and have wonderful, thoughtful conversation. But there are others who do not even mind the one rule we DO have---to have respectful and non-disruptive conversation. They are here to provoke, to harass, and to disrupt. It is evident by their HUNDREDS of posts that they have no interest in having a respectful debate or conversation. They are here to convert, to mock, and to ridicule, and so many otherwise wonderful threads are just totally obliterated because someone with small parts starts an off-topic, flamey conversation that totally derails the direction of all previous comments in the thread.

I like these aspects:

Although anyone is welcome to participate, the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group is a place where atheists and agnostics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion on politics, free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities

Those who do believe in a deity should be aware that the underlying assumption for discussions in this Group is that either "god" does not exist or that the existence of "god" is in doubt. If you are offended by such notions, you probably should not participate in this Group.

This group is intended as a positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is not intended as a place to argue the merits of beliefs or choices
How funny that many of the disruptors of THIS forum belong to the forum whose mission statement says that THEIR SAFE HAVEN is not a place to argue merits of beliefs or choices....but they have no problem coming HERE and arguing the merits of OUR beliefs or choices


If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.
----

I think a combination of all of the parts above would be a nice addition to our current and obviously inadequate mission statement:

Although anyone is welcome to participate, the DU Skeptics and Pseudoscience Group is a place where skeptics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of Pseudoscience, Naturopathy, Holistic practices on politics, free of debate about the worthiness of Pseudoscience, Naturopathy, and Holistic practices.

Those who beleive in the effacacy of Pseudoscience, Naturopathy, and Holistic practices should be aware that the underlying assumption for discussions in this group is that P,N,H either are not effective, or that their effecacy is in doubt. If you are offended by such notions, you should probably not participate in this group.

This group is intended as positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is NOT intended as as a place to argue the merits or beliefs or choices of skeptics.

If, for example, you believe that homeopathic or naturopathic practices have equal or better value than western medicine, then this probably isn't the group for you

---
or something like that....

[lizerdbits]

6. I think your suggestion to include Naturopathy and Homeopathy might be a good idea

Because our #1 disruptor is only arguing (at least before I put it on ignore) the validity of skepticism. That alone would probably solve most of our problems. If someone from the astrology group wants to ask why we don't accept something that's fine and I'm not against asking questions, but if they want to argue their position they're wasting everyone's time and disrupting.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Excellent!

Although anyone is welcome to participate, the DU Skeptics and Pseudoscience Group is a place where skeptics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of Pseudoscience, Naturopathy, Holistic practices on politics, free of debate about the worthiness of Pseudoscience, Naturopathy, and Holistic practices.

Those who beleive in the effacacy of Pseudoscience, Naturopathy, and Holistic practices should be aware that the underlying assumption for discussions in this group is that P,N,H either are not effective, or that their effecacy is in doubt. If you are offended by such notions, you should probably not participate in this group.

This group is intended as positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is NOT intended as as a place to argue the merits or beliefs or choices of skeptics.

If, for example, you believe that homeopathic or naturopathic practices have equal or better value than western medicine, then this probably isn't the group for you

---

[cosmik debris]

3. I'm not sure that it will do any good.

The current Mission Statement says that disruptive posts are not allowed, but they clearly are allowed by the mods for this forum.

I see the problem as the interpretation of "disruptive".

When a faith healer comes to this group and ridicules the posts of a regular, he should be asked not to post here and his post should be deleted. That's not happening.

I know there have been numerous alerts on the faith healer, and yet he returns every Saturday to piss on some thread. There seems to be a disconnect between what the Mission Statement says and how the mods enforce it.

Perhaps we just need a more concrete definition of "disruptive".

[cosmik debris]

8. Too late to edit, but...

Perhaps the word "non-confrontational" should be used somewhere in there.

[beam me up scottie]

21. It can't be any worse, young earth creationists, faith healers and other woos have their own groups.

We've become a target for the chronically ignorant and I'm sick of having to avoid OUR GROUP because of their childishness.

I have never seen a skeptic troll their groups, we respect their boundaries and if they can't return the favour, they should be banned.

[varkam]

4. I may be in the minority on this, but...

I guess I don't feel that trolls here are a huge problem worthy of changing the mission statement. It's annoying at times, sure, but at other times it's freaking hilarious so at worst I consider it a zero-sum game.

[TZ]

7. Yeah but I'm so sick of those posting here with their attitudes

of having to "keep an eye" on us or correct us or whatever the fuck they think is wrong with us...when clearly one of us can't evengo over to their group and post politely without it being locked and/or deleted. Plus clearly they have personal agendas (at least one disruptor stalks others in different forums). I'm tired of this place being a personal "airing of grievances" because they lost an argument elsewhere. They aren't interested in real discussion, varkam. Although I admit I do enjoy occasionally watching them become a chew toy for the majority (and then "claiming" that they "won" the debate) its getting tiresome.
I don't think changing the mission statement would stop them..because they have been told over and over that their behavior is inappropriate and had deleted posts but I think it would make the point to others feel the needwho to "monitor" our behavior.

[varkam]

10. I agree with you, and that used to be a problem for me.

Then I stopped taking them seriously in the slightest, and my blood pressure dropped significantly. I know that they're not interested in real discussion, because they wouldn't know real discussion if it bit them on the face. I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong - this is just my perspective on things.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Something has to change when a troll is allowed to blame a child for its own autism.

I don't believe the child's mother ever posted in this forum again, and I can't blame her.

[varkam]

28. IMO, that sort of behavior is deserving of a granite cookie.

I don't think, though, that changing the mission statement is going to prevent someone from being a psychopath.

[lizerdbits]

5. I've been going back and forth with this in my head for a while

While the idiocy of some disruptors can be so stupid it's funny and entertaining it does get old, and it's a pain to navigate thread with so many 'ignored' posts.

They remind me of my 3 year old nephew when I was at my sister's house yesterday. If he doesn't get what he wants he either cries or has a mini tantrum but if he's ignored he mostly stops. I think we should just stop responding and their thrill will be gone. They'll probably keep trying for a while and give up at some point. I think if you have someone on full blown ignore they can't even respond to you. Plus it's (it's mostly one person I think) probably reading this and getting off on the amount of attention it's getting.

OTOH, if we change the statement we won't have this problem at all. I agree that people who want to ask questions and engage in respectful and logical discussion while not high should definitely be welcome.

So I guess I'm kind of on the fence. If there's some kind of 'official' movement to change the MS (I'm not sure how we go about making that happen) I'd support it, but if it doesn't change I'll just keep the trolls on ignore and encourage others to not feed them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. If you have someone on ignore, they can still reply to you

There was a trial period on DU where you could stop certain DUers replying to your posts, but it didn't last long - it quickly degenerated into "this is what's true, and no returns, and la-la-la, I'm not listening".

So you have to put up with a reply that you can't see, and hope it's not misleading, a lie, an insult, and so on - or that someone else will respond to it, or alert on it, if it's something that really can't be left to stand as 'the last word'. But since you can't see their reply, you can't reply to it - and that stops a (probably pointless) back-and-forth sub-thread developing.

It's the balance between the "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" feeling, and "Don't Feed the Troll", that we each have to seek. At the moment, I'm slowly increasing my Ignore list, as a few DUers seem to be proving themselves of posting anything worth reading, and are instead just insulting and antagonising other DUers, seemingly just because they like doing that.

A few DUers have had Ignore lists with several hundred entries (though that can include tombstoned users). The whole experience of DU must be different for them.

[lizerdbits]

19. Thanks, I didn't know about that 'trial' period

My list is pretty short, mainly disruptors here and spammers in the Health Scare Lounge who post multiple threads on natural cures and how big pharma is going to kill us all but nothing else. I imagine if I spent more time in GD it might be longer, but it's hard to imagine approaching even a hundred.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. It lasted about 2 weeks

The start: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3076551&mesg_id=3076551
The lists of who is blocked from a thread are made public: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=14094&mesg_id=14094
The end: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=31042&mesg_id=31042

It became clear that 'cliques' were going to develop, that blocked each other from replying, for contentious subjects. While that has an effect a bit like the groups (when they work properly, anyway), it was all a bit too public - the threads would all appear on Latest Threads, be recommendable etc. It probably would have been truly awful once the primaries were under way.

[beam me up scottie]

23. I can get the details, we've done this before with the Science Forum.

The whackjobs were polluting it with threads about chemtrails, finding Atlantis, the moon landing hoax, and how our government is hiding secret cities built on Mars.

It wasn't easy, but we did change it.

[uppityperson]

9. Taking ideas from other group MS...

This group is intended as a positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society and is not intended as a place to argue the merits of skeptisism, science ans pseudoscience.

In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with skeptical beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs.

If you are offended by skeptics, skepticism or pseudoscience discussions, you probably should not participate in this Group. Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner.

[mr blur]

11. Pretty good, but remember we're a Group not a Forum. As such -

the Mods should be stopping the idiots anyway:

A DU Group is a special type of discussion forum, suggested by DU Members and dedicated to a particular mission. They are "safe havens" where all participants must support the mission statement of the Group in order to post. The mission statement of each DU Group is pinned to the top of that Group. Only donors are permitted to post in DU Groups. All of the DU Groups are listed in the DU Groups folder.

Members who disagree with a particular Group's mission statement, or who otherwise disrupt a particular Group can be barred from posting in that Group.

[trotsky]

13. The problem is that there's weasel loophole.

You see, what about the people who fancy themselves skeptical of skepticism? (As if.) Or the person who thinks that this group should allow people who are skeptical of empiricism and/or rationalism itself? We might do better to rename the group "Scientific Skepticism" to be more precise.

[TZ]

14. You are right on that.

The really annoying trolls claim they ARE skeptics without a real clue what skepticism really is. Being a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist is not skepticism sorry...

[skepticscott]

34. Well, that's one of the problems

Just about everyone thinks that they are both open-minded and hard to fool (just like everyone thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor), but most aren't. Everyone likes to think they're skeptical, except those who equate that word with being cynical, dismissive and closed minded, but as you say, most have no idea what true skepticism is...

[LeftishBrit]

15. Very good point!

The kind of people who would seriously disrupt tend to be NOT the straightforward placers of faith above scepticism, but those who want to challenge what they see as our arrogant 'fundamentalism' and argue that 'science is just another religion', to quote my exasperating ex-student.

[trotsky]

17. I just thought of a name for it: "GOTCHA" skepticism. n/t

[salvorhardin]

16. Excellent point

Skepticism is an overly broad term.

[uppityperson]

18. That is a very good point.

Change "skepticism" to "scientific skepticism" or "scientific skepticism and skepticism of pseudoscience"

[beam me up scottie]

24. True. The Twoofers claim they're the real skeptics and everyone else is brainwashed by the BFEE.

Having the term "pseudoscience" in the group name may also be a liability.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Nice, but maybe we should change one sentence:

Instead of "If you are offended by skeptics, skepticism or pseudoscience"

How about "If you are offended by skeptics, skepticism or criticism of pseudoscience" ?

[trotsky]

27. Bare minimum, that should be done. n/t

[uppityperson]

30. That needs to be changed

[skepticscott]

35. How about

"If you are offended by having to defend your claims with evidence, this may not be the group for you"

[SidDithers]

29. Happy medium?...

Back on topic, here's my 2 Canadian cents (worth about $.016 USD right now)

I don't mind the "inclusiveness" of the group, that we allow non-skeptics in as long as they're respectful, but we could be a bit more clear as to how "skepticism, science and psuedoscience" are discussed here. Perhaps something like "skepticism, defense of science, critique of pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society".

Maybe "defense" isn't right. I'm just thinking we can be more explicit about the direction that we approach those topics from.

Sid

[JackRiddler]

31. Simple - stop abusing the proud history of skepticism...

skeptic ( Brit. sceptic)
noun
1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
• a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.
2 Philosophy an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere

Mostly that's not what's going on here. The "accepted opinions" being questioned or doubted in this forum are almost exclusively of the new-age or religious variety (almost all of which I also find dubious, to be clear). There's a lot of derisive and to be frank unpleasantly arrogant humor directed at relative trivialities, like suckers who see Bigfoot or Jesus in a taco. It's so easy to feel superior! But skepticism applied to the products of the funded present-day Anglo-American science community (much of which is dubious, but one is not allowed to even discuss that here) prompts contempt and attack in advance of examination. You can't even get a rational discussion about current-day models of Big Bang cosmology, which surely qualify by the standard of reasonable doubt about "the possibility of knowledge." In addition, laughable government PR documents like the 9/11 Commission Report are treated like tablets freshly delivered from Mt. Sinai.

Skepticism is the tradition of the Socratic method (in ideal version), of David Hume and Kant's opening questions about epistemology (if not his conclusions). Also of all those who used logic to question the dominant beliefs of their time at personal risk (thank you Galileo). Skepticism is Einstein understanding at the end of his struggles that he didn't complete the task of a general universal theory, and that new paradigms and scientific revolutions are always in the birthing, the sum of human knowledge is never complete. It was not invented by the cult of James Randi or even that of Richard Dawkins. (I'll take Lynn Margulis, thank you, and she even comes with a medal from Congress and increasing establishment cred!)

Stop disguising secular superstitions, faith in the system and establishment ideology as "skepticism." Call it the "Case-Closed Establishment Paradigm Believers Forum" and I'm sure you can have the consensus you're seeking.

(That was pointless, but invigorating. Thanks!)

[mr blur]

32. "secular superstitions, faith in the system and establishment ideology"??

You're a dickhead ( Brit. dickhead)

[Orrex]

33. An appeal to the hoary etymology of a word is usually a sign of rhetorical bankruptcy

Especially when the attached post is preachy and sanctimonious. However, I believe that I have been preceded by someone who commented more succinctly on your rhetorical style.


Anyway, what a word might have meant at its inception, or what a given group might have stood for when they first assembled in days of old, is pretty close to irrelevant.

Also, referring to the "cult of James Randi or even that of Richard Dawkins" is exactly the "unpleasantly arrogant humor" that you nominally decry.

Further, on all of DU there is no skeptical argument more commonly deployed (nor more frequenty needed) than Hume's statement re: extraordinary claims, so it's pretty silly to invoke Hume in an effort to disparage the members of this Group.

I am endlessly amused to see dubious but self-annointed skeptics reaching down from the pedestal to tell other skeptics what skepticism really is.

:eyes:

[skepticscott]

36. Reaching down from my lofty perch

My own definition of skepticism is that it is the view that the strength of one's convictions should be proportional to the evidence supporting them.

And while Hume's statement is a nice compact comeback to a lot of unskeptical woo, in reality very difficult to lay out a coherent definition of the term "extraordinary claim" that covers everything that you want it to. One definition is that it is a claim that violates well-established and well-supported laws of nature, but by no means does that cover everything that people think of under that term.

[JackRiddler]

38. Hope you don't mind agreement...

Platitudes and rules of thumb (like Occam's) just don't cut it, no matter how wise. "Horses, not zebras" - well, what if you don't even know whether you're on a North American prairie or an African savannah? Most of the big questions of the universe lack the certainty of knowing the full context or all factors that may be in play. And what you think when you hear the hooves may be a reasonable guess, but it shouldn't be treated as airtight conclusion, let alone a reason to be smug. If the question actually matters to you, you follow the sound and see what the animals making the noise are. Or if that's impossible, you admit it, and argue your case with caveat. Otherwise you must leave room for reasonable doubt, and put aside easy contempt for those who think what seems to you the less likely possibility.

On reading your definition of skepticism, I think it is an excellent working start.

And I'll try to be more restrained in my own rhetoric.

[skepticscott]

40. I never mind agreement

I've just come not to expect it too often, since what I write is more inclined to honk people off than to evoke grouphug.

You're right about Occam's razor too, though...the sound bite version of it that's often tossed around ("The simplest explanation is the best") isn't particularly helpful in my opinion, and is sometimes just plain wrong. I prefer a slightly more elaborate verion: "When trying to explain something, start with the simplest explanation that covers all of the observed facts, and work from there"

Another definition of a skeptic that I like is from Miguel de Unamuno:

A skeptic is not one who doubts, but one who investigates or researches, as opposed to one who asserts and thinks that he has found.

It's stated a little awkwardly (he's from Barcelona), but I think it captures the essence of the idea better than most.

[Random_Australian]

39. Well, you're right about one thing: Government PR docs are treated like tablets from mount Sinai.

You could possibly have been more careful in your choice of metaphor. :)

Skepticism: It's just another name for thinking over things rationally. Secular superstitions? Faith in the system and establishment? I don't think you are quite as familiar with this group as you think you are. No, that does not mean we believe the same things you do.

Uh, and I don't actually pay much attention to either Randi or Dawkins. They do some interesting things on occasion, sure, but it's a more than a bit of a stretch to think I idolise them.


Well, that's been the truth. Given how the last x many people have acted, though, I'm reasonably sure you'll not believe it at all. Well, I might as well repeat it in case that helps: The 'establishment', isn't idolised, none of us fill our lives with 'James Randi' and 'science has already found everything case closed' is a sentiment none of us believe.

So my question is this: Was my post a shrill deluded knee-jerk reaction, or was it a hysterical strawman attack on your post? Bonus points if equate how sure we can be of scientific results with how sure you can be that a dream is real.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

37. I agree that something needs to be done

I often avoid this group because of the trolls and disruptors, and I think it could be one of the more enjoyable areas of DU if it weren't for these people. Open debate is a great thing, and I like to hear opposing viewpoints, even if I don't agree. However, open derision and contempt are what I see in most of these posts.

One suggestion I would make would be to change the name somehow to remove the word "pseudoscience" from it. At first glance, the name seems to imply that those who believe in pseudoscience are welcome to post under the assumption that their beliefs are correct.

[skepticscott]

41. One of the problems with the word pseudoscience

is that most people think it refers primarily to a topic or a field of study, when it is really better applied to a mindset or an approach to inquiry. There's a lot to be said on that subject, but the bottom line is that it's entirely possible to investigate claims in what are typically regarded as pseudoscientific fields (e.g. astrology or parapsychology) in a scientific way. It's only when people refuse to acknowledge strong evidence that the entities of phenomenon being discussed do not exist, and continue to cling to the claims with a host of rationalizations, logical fallacies and general woo-woo that their thinking and approach becomes pseudoscientific.

[LeftishBrit]

42. One thought...

I generally refer to it as the 'Sceptics Forum', and have to be reminded that it's in fact the 'Scepticism' (et al) forum. Perhaps 'Sceptics' would in fact be better than 'Scepticism', in indicating that it's a form primarily *for* sceptics.

One would have to come up with a more precise term for the sort of sceptics/scepticism that is meant here. 'Scientific Scepticism' occurs to me; except that some people might interpret this as 'scepticism *about* science'.

I think the mission statement should contain something to the effect that "If you consider that science is just one of many religions or belief systems, this forum will not be for you."

[dropkickpa]

43. Yeah, that's the ticket!

FOR Skeptics!!