Talk:List of scientific skeptics
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated List-class, High-importance)|
Notable skeptics to be added
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Lawrence Krauss, Simon Singh, Karen Stollznow
Richard Wiseman, Parapsychologist
One editor notes "I think someone here thinks all skeptical psychologists are parapsychologists... Richard Wiseman is a PSYCHOLOGIST," removing my description of Wiseman as a parapsychologist.
This edit is probably an improvement, and I'll leave it as is; most of Wiseman's recent activities are in straight psychology, and his PhD is technically for psychology. But it actually is accurate to describe Wiseman as a parapsychologist: if I understand his background correctly, his PhD was earned at the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh, making him one of a very few people on earth to have actually earned a doctorate "for parapyschology"; he's long been active in conducting parapsychological research; he was a member of the UK Society for Psychical Research; he has published in the technical literature of parapyschology, including the Journal of Parapsychology; and, he has authored books on the topic, including the textbook Parapsychology, co-authored with parapsychologist Caroline Watt. Loxton (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Where's the squids?
I was somewhat surprised to see Brendan Kilmartin in this list. While his website may welcome skeptics, it presents a largely credible treatment of the paranormal on the whole. I would hardly call it a skeptic website. I dug in the history, and this edit was made November 7-10, 2007 by an account with the same name as Brendan Kilmartin's website, and which has since been deleted. Not only that, but he deleted the entry for Jon Donnis at the same time. Seems to me this edit is a bit of battling between two UK webmasters and should be reverted. Krelnik (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this list is quite incomplete and others have mentioned that some of the category pages do a better job. Is it worth expanding for completeness? Lukekfreeman (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, I think that the category pages are better served than this page, which will always need revision and expanding. But have no problem if you want to try and complete it.Sgerbic (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the 'conferences' section and improved the 'organizations' section. Shouldn't we split this list up in three separate pages about skeptics, conferences and organisations? There is already a list of books about skepticism, we could also create lists for skeptical podcasts, skeptical magazines and skeptical television shows and films. On top of that, we can create a 'lists of skeptical topics' or 'lists about skepticism' as a list of lists page (similar to lists of atheists). Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Was Christopher Hitchens a scientific skeptic?
Was he? According to the narrow definition proposed bu Daniel Loxton, a scientific skeptic must carry out paranormal investigations. Hitchens never did that.
This article conflates Michael Shermer, self-congratulatory "skepticism" with the skepticism of, say, David Hume. The "I bloody love science" crowd are not ones to doubt anything except heresies. Cake (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)