Talk:Scientific skepticism

Points for improvement

I think the following sections need some improvement

• 4Examples
• 4.1Pseudoskepticism
• 5Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

Point is, "examples" deals with debunking. Debunking is an important ritual in the trade and as well notoriously futile. As pointed out in the astrology example, astrology has been debunked since ages - but to no avail. Hammer provides some points why - e.g. the focus on science and less on humanities. If you want to explain the ongoing success of astrology, you need too refer to its role as a ritualized divination and the relationship between clients and astrologers or the fun of reading a horoscope in a magazine. Both the Pseudoskepticism and the dangers of pseudoscience do not belong here. I suggest to cut them down to a mere link in the plain text or the overview. Polentarion Talk 13:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

When you claim that debunking is "notoriously futile", you obviously assume that the goal of debunking is to convince everyone. Your assumption is wrong. Skeptics know that some people are impervious to reasoning. The goal of debunking is supplying the others with it.

Hammer, eh? So you found another obscure guy you can pretend is a source for the anti-skeptic stuff you want to add to articles.

You also want to change the subject of the article from the idea itself to the group of people who hold the idea. That includes renaming the article. And then, suddenly, some stuff does not belong here anymore. Why don't you just make a new article about the group? But then the information you want destroyed is not destroyed, so that is probably not very attractive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I just ask to clean up. Pseudoscience and Pseudoscepticism have separate entries. With regard to the research about the sceptical movement, it provides some evidence and research about this sort of scepticals. I would have expected a true scientific sceptic would be happy, if his activities are being covered by actual scholars. Polentarion Talk 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"I would have expected" - don't be silly. You know it's not "being covered by actual scholars" I am objecting to. Cut the sophism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Olav Hammer is an actual scholar, Daniel Loxton, which had been described in this article as "sceptical historian", isn't. I love to use rational inquiry. Polentarion Talk 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said: cut the sophism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is about redundant sections, therefore "destroying information" is not the case anyway. You failed to give an constructive answer so far. You started to attack Hammer, "obscure guy, "anti-sceptical stuff". As said before, stop personal attacks. Polentarion Talk 13:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You do have a history of POV-warring on exactly this subject, so I know what to expect: slanted original research and quote-mining. I never said it is Hammer's fault.

I debunked your original research about the "notoriously futile debunking ritual" above. From your point of view, that may not be "constructive", but keeping non-sequitur stuff invented by users out of articles is still a good thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hammer is quite outspoken about the lack of reflection inside the movement about the futility of its attempts. If that was debunking, it's been just another showcase. Polentarion Talk 13:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, "Hob Gadling", comment on the content and stop attributing motives to the other editor -- the last several comments here are personal attacks because they are all about the commenter. Please explain yourself better and speak in a way that references the content questions but does not use ad hominems or call the others' speech "sophism" or reference to their history with an interpretation etc. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia -- civility and assuming good faith. I personally do see good faith here and i think Polentarion is speaking well, and could be engaged on the content. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"the last several comments here are personal attacks because they are all about the commenter" This is not true. "I never said it is Hammer's fault" is a rebut of his reasoning "You started to attack Hammer". What am I expected to say to a user who invents non-sequitur stuff, except "don't invent non-sequitur stuff"?

(BTW, I have know this guy for several years and my AGF regarding him has run out long ago. Are you saying I should ignore his "criminal record" for exactly this behavior on exactly this subject? de:Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer:Polentarion) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are the parts where i saw you as commenting on the editor and not on content: "cut the sophism" and "You do have a history of POV-warring on exactly this subject, so I know what to expect: slanted original research and quote-mining." Can you see how both of those comments of yours, Hob, are negative aspersions about another editor? SageRad (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if they are accurate? This guy was one of two contributors to a user subpage on German Wikipedia where skepticism is described as pathological. He has an agenda, and he doesn't fight nice. Shouldn't you look at the facts before you complain? This discussion is weird. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I fear Hob talk page contributions are not about facts but predominantly about persons, about his personal pride and prejudice. Quite boring. Hmm, I could translate our (User:Gamma's and mine) essay about scepticals and their role in the deWP into English. How about that? I gonna ask Gamma what he thinks of the idea. Polentarion Talk 18:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Great idea. That will tell the readers nothing about skeptics but a lot about you. I'm all for it, it will make my job easier because nobody will mistake you for a serious editor. But Gamma has ignored you from the beginning - I think you embarrass him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What is your job? You preach a weird gospel. Polentarion Talk 22:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues and Odysseys 2016

That section sounds like a merger of a fanzine with an press release. Its been claimed that more women take part but the main issue - the movement being dominated by nerdy male tekkie buffs with no idea of the humanities - has been deleted, not addressed. That said, the article is in danger of getting back into fandom. Polentarion Talk 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See below about the section; in this dif you also added unsourced content, which I also reverted. Per WP:PRESERVE that content was:

The membership of the movement is predominantly male and often has a background in the natural sciences and engineering. There is a significant lower ratio of female members and as well the humanities and social sciences have a lower place. An important difference is the one between wet and dry sceptic, the latter prefering to debunk paranormal claims, the former interested in actual examination of such phenomena.. The early controversy between Kurtz and Truzzi in the USA (in Germany, a similar conflict arised around GWUP founding member Edgar Wunder) resulted in a dominance of the dry sceptics.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. The first version contained a source. The rest, e.g. about the predominantly male tekkie background is a obvious, sourcing is already provided in the article, e.g. Hess respectively Dyrendal and Hammer and Ciscop itself. The skepchick scandal already got a separate article, Rebecca Watson. That said, I ask to restore the content and I will provide separate sourcing if required. Polentarion Talk 22:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "first version", sorry. Sourcing is not optional.Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The first version is the one deleted a while ago. There is no need for single references, we coiuld refer to general sources in a separate list. Btw, sourcing IS optional - we could write the article based on trivia. Like elderly bearded white DWEM leading sceptology ;) Polentarion Talk 23:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

PS.: The way you present a trivia point as being "fraudulent" is plain bullshit, sorry to say. The sceptical movement always was and never ended to be a white male geriatric zoo - Rebecca Watson showed it - and in so far 20 year old sources still apply. Polentarion Talk 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You did well to bring in the sexism stuff. Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No prob. You forgot about the title of the section, it's been overview, not about elevatorgate. The split of Tuzzi (and the parallel to Wunder) is much more important than detailed stories of skepchick. And Hess was outspoken about white geriatric (bearded) males with Dawkins appearing like the pope respectively Billy Graham on a reborn Evangelzation Camp ;) Polentarion Talk 01:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In this dif you restored unsourced content about " a similar controversy happened with Edgar Wunder in the German sceptical movement.". Don't add unsourced content to WP, and don't edit war to keep it. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Fart applies. Its like Paris is in France. You left out white and geriatric - thats whitewashing. No reason given to restore that. And I would prefer to have an overview in the overview section, not fine details about a single event. Polentarion Talk 02:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

White and old are in there now, and were already when you wrote that. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I may have over seen you restoring a part, sorry for that, if so. We still should add again the prevalence of nerds and tekkies, will say most have an science and engineering background and lack humanities and social science perspectives. Polentarion Talk 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues and Odysseys 2016 section

Agree with the above that is UNDUE and PROMO; there is potentially useful content here but it needs to be reworked. Copied here, per WP:PRESERVE.

Issues and Odysseys 2016

At the fortieth anniversary of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, editor Kendrick Frazier asked "scientists and skeptics who have come to prominence ... in the last twenty years" their thoughts on scientific skepticism. The responses received from the nineteen respondents were varied but fell into two categories "Issues and Odysseys in Science and Skepticism". The "Odysseys" reflects the various paths they found to scientific skepticism.

Science educator Bill Nye writes that the "overwhelming concern is human-caused global climate change." He states that we are already behind schedule as society has been "hoodwinked by climate change deniers, who suggest that 30,000 scientists are involved in a worldwide conspiracy. Nye wants society to promote science policies to "provide clean water, reliable electricity and access to electronic information to everyone on Earth." Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains that politicians need to be guided by scientific agencies. Scientific literacy is utmost in importance. Change will not happen, "until people in charge, and the people who vote for them, come to understand how and why science works." Neurologist Steven Novella also feels that scientific literacy should be the goal society should strive for, "to slowly move our species in the direction of science and reason." One way to do this is to not leave the "charlatans" unopposed. Activist skeptics should "cover whatever topics suit their interests, motivations and talents." Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss writes that he is concerned that society is not asking good questions about "prevailing wisdom" and that we are not adjusting teaching methods to better train our students. Astronomer David Helfand would agree that education is the key, we must "provide spam filters... students can [vet] information to make personal decisions and to contribute rationally to civil society." Taking a step back and examining our goals, Scott O. Lilienfeld writes that the skeptical movement should "take a much more critical look at the success, and lack thereof, of our communication and persuasion efforts." Lilienfeld also believes that the community needs to start earlier in children's lives "before these propensities become deeply entrenched."

Geologist Sharon Hill believes that in order for the skeptical community to more forward in improving scientific literacy, they need to seek out "new leaders, with new ideas and experienced professional to ditch the old ways of doing things ... shattering the cynical curmudgeonly old guy stereotype." She is skeptical that this is something that will be happening soon, and writes that planning and money may be able to repair a fractured community that is rife with in-fighting. Hill calls for a "reboot". Psychologist Richard Wiseman is optimistic about the future of skepticism. The Internet has made it possible to connect with other skeptics, to share information and resources. Sites like YouTube allow the community to avoid television and publishers who in the past have felt that skepticism would not sell. Wiseman states, "more people than ever are discovering that fact is far more fascinating than fiction." Philosopher Daniel Dennett writes that expertise should not be ignored, authority should mean something, and false balance should be called out. Martin Bridgstock writes that the paranormal community is adapting, skeptics are forced to play "whack-a-mole" but he is optimistic, the skeptical movement is adapting as well. More women are becoming involved, and the demographics are showing a younger movement. He is also hopeful that Indian skeptics are beginning to fight against the village Godman. Edzard Ernst sums up his thoughts of the skeptical movement by saying that they should prioritize targets, be open to extraordinary claims and finally "we are often too detached, abstract and polite. Our opponents tell so many lies about us that we should consider telling the truth about them."

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It contains some praise for the Magazine and as well for Scientific literacy. Nye and others have to swallow the Donald first and seem to fear about climatism as well. I don't see any valid reference to this article, which is about the Skeptical_movement, not about US policy and education. Polentarion Talk 23:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, why was I not tagged on this revert? This is a page about the Skeptical Movement, these are the movers and shakers of the movement and their opinions of where they think the movement is and where it should go as of right now. This is not Promotional or Undo. And I would have appreciated it if instead I was notified.Sgerbic (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is really WP:UNDUE based on a non-indepedent source. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Run that past me again please Jytdog. They are a skeptic magazine, THE skeptic magazine, who is asking the opinion of the "stars" of the skeptical movement all of which are notable people. Maybe Gardeners Monthly would be a better resource for what is happening in the skeptic movement? S.I. is a secondary notable source that published notable opinions about the topic of the Wikipedia article. that is not undue.Sgerbic (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

yep so it is a big bolus of in-universe blabber. I would do the same if some chiropractic journal had a big anniversary issue on the status of chiropractic and some chiropractor would be making the same in-universe argument that you are making. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Rules are for everybody. Polentarion deleted the paragraph for the wrong reason, of course, as usual, but accidentally he did the right thing once - though in his usual rude manner.

SI regularly has articles like this where it cheers its heroes (who are also my heroes) but they are more encouraging than informative. They have their place, but an encyclopedia article should not adopt them.

Maybe some parts are salvageable though. We could compress it to one sentence at most. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand your argument. The problem isn't that I added notable skeptic's opinions of what is going on in 2016 with the skeptical movement. The problem is that I took all these opinions from one source? If this is true, then if we found all these peoples same opinion written in different places then the edit would stand? How many would it need to be? 50%? If so then this opens the door to other opinions that are not solicited by S.I. Would this satisfy everyone?Sgerbic (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't lay my finger on it but this whole thing just feels wrong. Maybe it is because all those statements only have the occasion in common: an anniversary. Some of those people talk about goals, some about current issues, some about strategies. It's a wild mixture. If the reader wants to read what skeptics' goal is, she needs to filter through all this. The same for current issues or strategies. It is interesting, but as part of an encyclopedia article, it is neither here nor there. Now I think about it, maybe the article should have something like "Goals", "Methods", "Strategies" paragraphs. Maybe this paragraph could be split into such subsections. With a proper introduction, this could work. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The policy issue is WP:UNDUE and the reason it is UNDUE is that this is a bunch of content sourced to a single non-independent source; this special anniversary issue. It also basically turns WP into a summary of that special issue and we are not its webhost nor are we a blog for skeptical movement, per WP:PROMO (part of WP:NOT). This is an encyclopedia article and in my view, the way various prominent skeptics feel about the movement on the 40th anniversary is not encyclopedic content. It is the same policy/guideline-based argument I would bring if someone did the same with some chiro-journal special issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

personal opinion and personal attacks. Knock if off
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of it is useless, as it is about guys bragging on their own stuff instead of anything about the Magazine or the movement. There are some noteable exemptions: Lilienfeld asks for a more critical look at the lack of success of the movement. Something asked for by Hess or Hammer as well. Geologist Sharon Hill asks for a reboot and refers a) to the WASA (white anglo saxon atheist) and old man stereotype. She asks for reboot, as the current fractured community rife in in-fighting doesn't have much of a future. Bridgstock is more optimistic about the geriatric bearded white men, as e.g. Indian sceptics seem to deliver some fresh blood. Polentarion Talk 21:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Your contribution is as worthless as predictable. Of course I did not mean you with "others". Go away and let the serious people talk. Oh right: did you find the place where I call somebody a killer yet? Can't be that difficult, can it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Does your deletion of my contribution mean you know I never said it? Does being caught at lying hurt you that much? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What the heck are you all talking about? I'm not privy to whatever feud you all have with each other. How do you get anything done here if you are biting at each other? I spend my time working with new people and creating content and very little time on talk pages. Now I remember why.Sgerbic (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have answered your question as best i can above. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

My proposal goeas as forth: While most of the text is rather internal, about the Magazine or the movement, there are some noteable exemptions:

• • Lilienfeld asks for a more critical look at the lack of success of the movement. Something asked for by Hess or Hammer as well.
  • Geologist Sharon Hill asks for a reboot and refers a) to the old white man stereotype in the skeptical moevement. She asks for an internal reboot and describes the scepticals as a fractured community rife in in-fighting which doesn't have much of a future.
  • Bridgstock is more optimistic about the geriatric bearded white men, as e.g. Indian sceptics seem to deliver some fresh blood. Polentarion Talk 07:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jocular names - skeptopreneur

Polentarian added and then edit-warred back in the jocular language from the Rinallo book about "skeptopreneurs".

This is not encyclopedic in my view. What do others think? Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources use terms like skeptopreneurs and refer to an abundance of geriatric white males, not just some sole sexist in the elevator. You keep calling me names, from editwarring till falsification but your way of editorializing the sources is close to whitewashing. Polentarion Talk 02:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A book comfortable with jokey language =/= Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. P wants to turn the article into an attack piece. The Rebecca Watson stuff, which is desribed pretty well in the Rebecca Watson article, was really missing here, and adding it was a good thing. But that was coincidence, because improving the article is not this user's goal.

Cross-checking whatever he adds with the sources given is a must; he has a history of distorting quotes to fit his anti-skeptic agenda. That was one of the reasons for his many blocks on German Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The book in question is called Consumption and Spirituality and was written by Diego Rinallo, Linda M. Scott, Pauline Maclaran and published by Routledge in 2013. Professor Linda Scott is the Emeritus DP World Chair for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford.DiegoRinallo‎ is Associate Professor of Marketing and Consumer Culture, Kedge Business School, Marseille. Pauline Maclaran is Professor of Marketing & Consumer Research in the School of Management at Royal Holloway. Will say this is a academic publication in well known publishing house. And if you don't like the language, it is your problem and POV. I ask to restore the content of cause. Polentarion Talk 21:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Marketing folk - geez. Not relevant. What's next - Yellow Press? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Just_don't_like_it applies. Economists, for sure and exactly on the topic of this article, academic, scholarly, clearly relevant, third party using understandeable language and even humour. As said, restore it. Your personal POV is not relevant. Polentarion Talk 22:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What economists say is not relevant to the topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This high ranking economists have studied the skeptical movement. Polentarion Talk 22:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Diego Rinallo, Linda M. Scott and Pauline Maclaran are "high-ranking economists"? Well, if you say so... Is there any evidence they "studied the skeptical movement" except them allegedly making jokes about it? I could not even find the word "skeptopreneur" on the internet, except two links about "Lost Motorcyclist", so if they wrote about it, nobody except you seems to have read it. To put it very mildly, that is not enough to justify relevance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Try Saïd Business School, Royal_Holloway,_University_of_London and KEDGE Business School, the latter a Grande ecole btw.. Polentarion Talk 22:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Those articles do not contain that word either. You are not making any sense, as usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your claim was about high ranking. Those scholars are on very high ranking universities. You praise science, you seem to lack an idea of actual Wissenschaft. Polentarion Talk 07:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Polentarian, WP has polices about NPOV; book publishers don't. We don't include everything every source says, for various reasons. If you held an RfC on casually including "skeptopreneur" or "skepchick" as you did in your dif, especially based on this ref only, it would go down in flames. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The chapter is called No Gods. No Masters? The "New Atheist" Movement and the Commercialization of Unbelief, (p.54-68), by Mary Johnstone-Louis, in Consumption and Spirituality by Diego Rinallo, Linda M. Scott, Pauline Maclaran, Routledge 2013. The book investigates how spiritual beliefs, practices, and experiences (including those of sceptics and new atheists) are now embedded into a global consumer culture. That said, a sceptoproneur is a (business) leader on the belief (resp. unbelief) markets. The chapter is about the global impact of sceptoproneurs like Dawkins e.g. with books, speeches and media. If WP or the sceptical part of it stays in the 1980ies language wise, I don't have to care much. Watson is called skepchick and sceptoproneur is an interesting term in a valuable study. It is Ok to elaborate on the final text and wording but of cause the study is noteable and very much about this article. Polentarion Talk 22:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Again: does that article have any notable reception? Did anybody except you read it? See [1]. 69 hits, only the book itself and sites where you can buy it. Are those authors that bad at marketing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The source is fine. The word choice was not. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. Just to make you aware that a chapter about the new atheists and their sceptical sidewing written by a University of Oxford scholar in a Routledge publication undergoes real scrutiny - nothing an amateur project like Wikipedia never ever will provide. That said, Wikipedia never has been a source, this book of cause is one. And NPOV does not apply in the real world. Thank God. Polentarion Talk 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Googling sceptopreneur turns up exactly zero results. Clearly such made-up jargon was never in widespread use and is therefore completely unsuitable for Wikipedia.  Adrian^[232] 04:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not relevant. The word sounds like a red herring for you. The reaction fits with Hess' theory about the skeptical movement feeling "science (and the movement itself) being sacred" and not being touched by e.g. commercial gains. That said, economists deals with social religeous movements, cults and their role on the spiritual marketplace. The Theory of religious economy is being used here, being expanded on atheists, skepticals and their leading figures and preachermen (bearded, white geriatric men always fit well in the role), will say skeptopreneurs. I will provide a different wording, but this academic source is of cause exact on the point and much more valuable than internal stuff from skeptical magazines. Polentarion Talk 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I will not be responding further here per WP:SHUN and I reckon others will do the same. Only one editor wants this and everyone else has provided policy-based reasons not to. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As you said, the word choice needs to be adapted, the source as such is fine. I will use a better wording. 18:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for how to structure this entry, based on Swedish-language Wikipedia

I know this is likely to be rejected, but I will put it forth anyways, as a suggestion. I would suggest modelling this Wikipedia entry on how the Swedish-language Wikipedia has on the same subject. It is simple, clear, and easy to read. Not very long either. It also includes scientific skepticism as a concept as well as the skeptical movement.

Below I have posted in in italic. I have only translated the intro part and the titles of the various sections. I can translate the rest if there is any interest.

Scientific skepticism is an approach in which one questions the veracity of claims about objective reality lacking empirical evidence. Scientific skepticism should not be confused with other sketpical traditions.

In practice this means that one investigates assumed pseudoscientific and paranormal claims with the aid of scientific methods, to find evidence for or against those claims. This work is associated with the skeptical movement.

Overview ...

History ...

The skeptical movement ...

See also ...

References ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.3.98 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the Swedish article can be viewed via Google translate here. (Placed here for new readers.) --David Tornheim (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Swedish article is about a different topic, called "scientific skepticism". I doubt the term would warrant a separate entry. We describe the movement and that is complicated enough. Polentarion Talk 21:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

History lesson: The Swedish article was about the same subject as this one until you renamed and reworked this one, so your reasoning is invalid. What you doubt is not relevant, and neither are your limitations on subject complexity. I am for such an article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This article and its sources are about the movement and they always have been about it. The article has been moved to adapt to the content. If you want to write about "scientific scepticism", whatever that may be, try to write a draft, propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation and move it then into article space. Polentarion Talk 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

? As said, feel free to write an article about scientific skepticism. The movement is being described here. Polentarion Talk 17:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was there. The link above points to it. I know you never understood the concept of scientific skepticism, so you don't need to repeat it.

(PA deleted) Should we have such an article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As said, try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. Here is movement. Polentarion Talk 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC) PS: Hob Gadling, you already received a civility warning by other users related to this talk page. I gave you another one and added one about harrassment.

I don't know where I was during the September move discussion (now archived at Talk:Skeptical movement/Archive 3), but if it had been a formal Requested Move discussion, I would most likely have started out opposed. The article retains much of its character as a discussion of scientific skepticism as a philosophical activity or approach and is not exclusively about the movement, though discussion of the modern skeptical movement was beginning to take over. But I would have found it hard to support a split.

The problem is much the same as the article Critical thinking, where there is a philosophical activity not very far removed from scientific skepticism or rational analysis or rational inquiry, but also a large movement dedicated to teaching critical thinking skills to students in schools (perhaps several movements). That article is something of a muddle, too.

As for the suggestion by our anonymous colleague that we follow the Swedish edition's structure, I'm afraid that's a dead letter as long as there remains this lack of consensus as exemplified by Polentarion and Hob Gadling.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I ask to have scientific skepticism relink to Critical thinking. There is not much of a difference and it would help to avoíd double work. And you may use the Swedish structure there as well.

A thing called "scientific scepticism" does not exist in academia. There is a basic lack of interest by the scientific community to deal with the topics it cares for (see Loxton's complaints, that was the base for the movement) and a lack of interest of actual philosophers and the humanities to take it serious. As Hammer said, "the intellectual forebears of the modern skeptical movement are rather to be found among the many writers throughout history who have argued against beliefs they did not share." That said, the whole business is an amateur affair happening within the movement. Polentarion Talk 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, finally. I already feared I was the only one who wants to discuss this.

I too would have preferred the old article, but I can also accept the existence of two articles, one about the idea and one about the movement. Maybe we can do Scientific skepticism and Skeptical Inquiry if we find good sources on the differences.

The move in September was done in rather brute-force manner by a single determined user. After the fait accompli, a little discussion started, and all we got as defense of the move was, instead of reasoning:

• quotes from Olav Hammer, a historian of religion who specializes in esotericism and does not like skeptics. Of course it is OK to use sources who dislike skeptics, but decisions on an article about skepticism should not rely just on one single source that been specifically picked for that purpose;
• diversionary tactics (Red herring),
• misrepresentations of what other people said (Strawman).

I decided the damage done was not bad enough to justify all those pages of dodging and weaseling that were to be expected if one tried to undo it. I guess others thought the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As said, this article and the main part of its sources are about the movement. If you want to write about Scientific skepticism, feel free to use the redirect. Olav Hammer, Hess, Dyrendal and others are actual scholars. Describing skeptics via third party scholalry sources ist just working along policy. If you need a fanzine based on internal sources, try a blog. Polentarion Talk 18:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Swedish Wikipedia entry is referenced. And by changing the entry from "scientific skepticism" to "skeptical movement", English Wikipedia deviates from I think every other language Wikipedia entry on the subject.--85.194.1.48 (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the Swedish article can be viewed via Google translate here. Please note that the {{Expand Swedish}} (part of {{Expand}}) template can be handy if we were to agree with the editor posting above: {{Expand Swedish|Vetenskaplig_skepticism|date=March 2017}}. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with this article being as it is and scientific skepticism pointing to it. Unfortunately the title 'scientific skepticism' can mean just skepticism as employed by scientists or the movement and going to this article makes it obvious what is mean. With the way it is currently organised people should not be fooled into thinking this article describes part of the scientific method and this article can concentrate on covering just one well defined topic properly. Yes this article used to be like the Swedish one and I agreed with the change as I felt that was easier than keeping arguing as the topic was changed. If desired Scientific skepticism could be turned into a disambiguation page instead of a redirect and the entry in {{Skepticism}} pointed here instead. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But the skeptical movement promotes scientific skepticism, it doesn't just exist for the sake of existing. Reading about scientific skepticism is of course important for any article covering the movement. Classical skeptical books, like The Demon-Haunted World, Why People Believe Weird Things, and Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, tend to tread lightly on the organized movement. The latter book was even written before the movement was formed.85.194.1.59 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)