|
|
|
AKM
New Member
Canada
31 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2005 : 17:47:36
|
I was wondering about something recently. As far as I can tell, alot of the participants in skeptical forums and groups seem to be well educated, formally, that is. I understand that not everyone that is skeptical has had the opportunity of university education, like me. Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
I've also noticed that on a few forums and sites, there seems to be quite a few twentysomethings to early thirties that post. I was wondering if any of you consider participating in some kind of skeptical function, ie forums, debates, lectures, a passing fad in regard to age.
For example, in the sixties the hippy movement was mainly comprised of young people. It also had a kind of philosophy of peace and love. After the sixties, hippies were passe. The eighties were the "Me" generation with a philosophy of self above all.
As I understand it skepticism is an approach to viewing the world and a tool in sifting through what is bullshit and what isn't. But do any of you think that some people treat it as a fad that is the "latest" and "hippest" thing to be involved in?
|
"Leadership is not magnetic personality—that can just as well be a glib tongue. It is not "making friends and influencing people"—that is flattery. Leadership is lifting a person's vision to higher sights, the raising of a person's performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations." Peter F. Drucker
"If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we'd all be millionaires." Abigail Van Buren |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 18:41:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by AKM
I was wondering about something recently. As far as I can tell, alot of the participants in skeptical forums and groups seem to be well educated, formally, that is. I understand that not everyone that is skeptical has had the opportunity of university education, like me. Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
Not unless any of their formal education dealt with any of those topics. My first introduction to anything that could be termed "structured argumentation" was my Philosophy 101 class in college. Still, most people either are never exposed to it or fail to see how critical thinking and logic are useful in their daily lives. At most you see a few people throwing out terms like "ad hominem" here and there, usually with little regard for correct usage.
However, formal education is not a requirement. Many people find their way to skepticism either through a natural inclination or from having been burned by some dubious claim, scam, or other unevidenced belief.
quote:
I've also noticed that on a few forums and sites, there seems to be quite a few twentysomethings to early thirties that post. I was wondering if any of you consider participating in some kind of skeptical function, ie forums, debates, lectures, a passing fad in regard to age.
For example, in the sixties the hippy movement was mainly comprised of young people. It also had a kind of philosophy of peace and love. After the sixties, hippies were passe. The eighties were the "Me" generation with a philosophy of self above all.
As I understand it skepticism is an approach to viewing the world and a tool in sifting through what is bullshit and what isn't. But do any of you think that some people treat it as a fad that is the "latest" and "hippest" thing to be involved in?
I highly doubt it. I think what your seeing is simply the age demographic of people who spend time online, whatever their interests.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2005 18:43:40 |
 |
|
|
AKM
New Member
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 22:26:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
However, formal education is not a requirement. Many people find their way to skepticism either through a natural inclination or from having been burned by some dubious claim, scam, or other unevidenced belief.
Agreed. I suppose in my case, and I really don't want to make this about me, I find it somewhat intimidating in a way when conversing with other skeptical people. Alot do tend to be well educated, formal or not. I find myself wondering if I've held my own in a debate or conversation and not come off as a dumbass. Although I will fully admit that I may say dumbass things from time to time, a thick skin is preferred over a thick head. |
"Leadership is not magnetic personality—that can just as well be a glib tongue. It is not "making friends and influencing people"—that is flattery. Leadership is lifting a person's vision to higher sights, the raising of a person's performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations." Peter F. Drucker
"If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we'd all be millionaires." Abigail Van Buren |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 22:45:13 [Permalink]
|
AKM says: As I understand it skepticism is an approach to viewing the world and a tool in sifting through what is bullshit and what isn't. But do any of you think that some people treat it as a fad that is the "latest" and "hippest" thing to be involved in?
I bet that message boards attract people on the younger side of the spectrum. When I go to my local skeptic group, my husband and I are always by far the youngest people there [we're late30s/early40s, the rest of our group are late 50s and beyond] Considering CSICOP has been around since the late 70s, I don't think it's a fad. It might be nice if it were, since I'd rather have young people getting themselves educated [especially about what constitutes proof] and learning how to debate properly, instead of going to a megachurch for all their social and exercize needs. |
trish |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 22:48:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by AKM
Agreed. I suppose in my case, and I really don't want to make this about me, I find it somewhat intimidating in a way when conversing with other skeptical people. Alot do tend to be well educated, formal or not. I find myself wondering if I've held my own in a debate or conversation and not come off as a dumbass. Although I will fully admit that I may say dumbass things from time to time, a thick skin is preferred over a thick head.
Oh, man, I wouldn't worry about that. Sometimes you'll get people who try to intimidate you with their "education." That usually means they're trying to change the subject because you have them on the ropes. 
But in all seriousness, all discourse is a process. If you don't fully understand a point someone else is trying to make, ask questions until you do. They key is to remain honest, forthright, and open to new points of view. We all have instances where we fall short, but rectifying that is usually not further than an apology away. But never be afraid to look stupid or you'll just remain stupid. A good sense of humilty and humor goes a long way.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 23:35:44 [Permalink]
|
In regards to skepticism being a fad, philosophical skepticism has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks. More recently, there's a Woody Allen movie... I can't remember the exact name, but it's a parod on Shakespear's "A Midsummer's Night Dream". Anyway, there's a character in it - a very old man - who is a hard core religious skeptic and intellectual. And I've seen other such archetypes. Which relates to your corrolation between higher education and skepticism.
Skepticism as it is exhibited by the members of this forum and local clubs (like the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking - PhACT - which is mostly made up of middle aged men BTW) is really just one branch of the overall "freethought movement" (this could be demonstrated by similar focus on issues of church state, science education, heros like Randi and Shermer in common), and that stretches back linearly to at least philosophical Humanist communities in America in the 20's. (Which also still exist.) So I'd say skeptics are very much part of an established tradition, though it changes a little with every new generation, of course. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 23:36:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by AKM
I was wondering about something recently. As far as I can tell, alot of the participants in skeptical forums and groups seem to be well educated, formally, that is. I understand that not everyone that is skeptical has had the opportunity of university education, like me. Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
My education currently sits at an Associate of Science. Not much for the formal education in debate and critical thinking on my part. Though, I do have an inclination toward curiosity that and I'm just old enough that I remember watching Cosmos on PBS as a kid. I liked Carl Sagan, when I got older I began with reading his books, which led to others on many subjects. I could just as easily have read the info on Atlantis and been that cab driver that Sagan found intelligent but misinformed.
quote:
I've also noticed that on a few forums and sites, there seems to be quite a few twentysomethings to early thirties that post. I was wondering if any of you consider participating in some kind of skeptical function, ie forums, debates, lectures, a passing fad in regard to age.
Hmm, Don't know if this adds anything to the age of skepticism as we know it today:
quote:
He quotes from a pamphlet entitled A Candle in the Dark written about 350 years ago: ". . . the Nations [will] perish for lack of knowledge"
from: http://www.sipe.com/halebopp/zhalestatement.htm
quote:
For example, in the sixties the hippy movement was mainly comprised of young people. It also had a kind of philosophy of peace and love. After the sixties, hippies were passe. The eighties were the "Me" generation with a philosophy of self above all.
Hippies were also the instrument of a lot of social change that occurred in the late 50s, 60s, and early 70s. Such as the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not sure they really became passe, just a new generation emerged. And putting yourself first isn't always a bad thing.
quote:
As I understand it skepticism is an approach to viewing the world and a tool in sifting through what is bullshit and what isn't. But do any of you think that some people treat it as a fad that is the "latest" and "hippest" thing to be involved in?
I'm not sure people would. Granted I live near one of the biggest New Age centers in my state (Boulder), I'd say that skepticism is a bit more difficult a practice than a fad would allow. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 06:36:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by AKM
I was wondering about something recently. As far as I can tell, alot of the participants in skeptical forums and groups seem to be well educated, formally, that is. I understand that not everyone that is skeptical has had the opportunity of university education, like me. Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
No. Some of the people who inspired me through example for critical thinking didn't have a higher education.
quote:
I've also noticed that on a few forums and sites, there seems to be quite a few twentysomethings to early thirties that post. I was wondering if any of you consider participating in some kind of skeptical function, ie forums, debates, lectures, a passing fad in regard to age.
For example, in the sixties the hippy movement was mainly comprised of young people. It also had a kind of philosophy of peace and love. After the sixties, hippies were passe. The eighties were the "Me" generation with a philosophy of self above all.
As I understand it skepticism is an approach to viewing the world and a tool in sifting through what is bullshit and what isn't. But do any of you think that some people treat it as a fad that is the "latest" and "hippest" thing to be involved in?
I think some people who do not understand it or wish to study it may see it as a fad. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 08:01:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by AKM
I was wondering about something recently. As far as I can tell, alot of the participants in skeptical forums and groups seem to be well educated, formally, that is. I understand that not everyone that is skeptical has had the opportunity of university education, like me. Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
I've also noticed that on a few forums and sites, there seems to be quite a few twentysomethings to early thirties that post. I was wondering if any of you consider participating in some kind of skeptical function, ie forums, debates, lectures, a passing fad in regard to age.
For example, in the sixties the hippy movement was mainly comprised of young people. It also had a kind of philosophy of peace and love. After the sixties, hippies were passe. The eighties were the "Me" generation with a philosophy of self above all.
As I understand it skepticism is an approach to viewing the world and a tool in sifting through what is bullshit and what isn't. But do any of you think that some people treat it as a fad that is the "latest" and "hippest" thing to be involved in?
I'm 20, joined SFN when I was 19 (or was it before?). I'm sure there are at least two regulars here at SFN who are younger than me.
But I think it's less of an age thing, than a 'personal evolution' thing. Young people that go from stupid fantasizing mongrels to critical thinking, scientific mongrels? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 10:14:01 [Permalink]
|
I am skeptical of certain formal educators, namely those who have their own books as required reading. I became a skeptic early in high school BTW, from reading Stephen Gould books about evolution. (No doubt he had his books on the required reading list.)
Edit: I started as a cynic though and I was mean to the ignorant folks, but I have grown out of it. Now I try to beat them up with logic. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/28/2005 10:19:32 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 11:16:54 [Permalink]
|
Well, if I am any example at all, I have almost no formal higher education. (I left school to be a songwriter and rock musician full time. Knowing what I know now, that is a choice I probably would not make if I had it to do over, but still, that was the choice I made.) I am almost completely self-taught.
My love of science never waned in the years since. One reason for founding SFN was to demonstrate that the tools of critical thinking and skepticism are not only available to an educated elite. We (me and the other co-founders) really want to de-mystify and popularize skepticism. I am 55 now. I have been an active skeptic for many years. I do not think learning and teaching people how to recognize baloney is a fad. I think it is a necessary skill, even if we may not be able to convince everyone of that…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 14:26:04 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps worth mentioning: Even if most self-declared and practicing skeptics do have some formal higher education, skepticism shows no bias toward things that emerge from academia, since many of the things criticized by skeptics are flawed academic studies.
I must say that I just get a kick out of Christian fundamentalists claiming that the "clergy" of the religion of atheism are professors in universities. (Has anyone else heard this claim - I've heard it several times from various sources. Ridiculous, huh?) Anyone who spends enough time in any university or college department with come to see that professors love to argue with each other much more than they argue with people outside of the "ivory tower". And they don't hide their disagreements from the students (like the Catholic Church hides the process of how they choose the pope). Maybe going to college encourages skepticism because how could one not be a skeptic after watching two PhDs screaming at each other through a stairwell?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 18:29:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I must say that I just get a kick out of Christian fundamentalists claiming that the "clergy" of the religion of atheism are professors in universities. (Has anyone else heard this claim - I've heard it several times from various sources. Ridiculous, huh?) Anyone who spends enough time in any university or college department with come to see that professors love to argue with each other much more than they argue with people outside of the "ivory tower". And they don't hide their disagreements from the students (like the Catholic Church hides the process of how they choose the pope). Maybe going to college encourages skepticism because how could one not be a skeptic after watching two PhDs screaming at each other through a stairwell?
I have certainly heard it argues from various fundamentalist/conservative sides that the American universities are some sort of hub for skeptical/atheistic thought-- something that they most certainly want to destroy. The irony of this is that such people never seem to mention that on the flip side of the coin, there are literally hundreds (thousands?) of universities that are specifically geared towards pushing a Christian fundamentalist agenda. They are such that one be a "professing Christian" in oder to teach there, and doubtless heretical ideas are not to be put forward in class.
Could a serious public or private school get away with hiring on the basis of having professors being only atheist or agnostic?!? Hardly. And of course, we know that hard core Christians teach at major public universities, since various creationist websites happily inform us that advocates of their position teach at mainstream universities.
This is all a tangent to say that yes, the Right likes to disown major public and private universities when they advance anti-Christian views (like, say, that the earth is a few billion years old), but will embrace them when it suits them. And all the while, they get their own special league of schools which are Christian-only, which never seems to make it into the discussion when it comes to the liberal bent of academia... |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 19:45:56 [Permalink]
|
I thought I should add that a simple (or should I say "amazing?") magician is one of the most well-known skeptics in the country. James Randi reminds people quite often that he holds no titles of higher learning, or as he likes to say, there are no letters after his name. I find the James Randi Educational Foundation to be a good online resource, especially Randi's weekly commentaries, which are archived.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/28/2005 22:46:44 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 00:19:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
My 2 cents.
The vast majority of being a skeptic is just common sense and being pragmatic (just look through the topics here). I don't think you need to be especially 'smart' either. A higher education is very helpful, but only if you're sensible in the first place. Else, you may just end up more adept at spinning things to fit bizarre ideas. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 04:17:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by AKM
... Does anyone here think that a formal higher education would make one more adept at critical thinking, debating, and using logic?
...
I believe that once you adopt skepticism/critical thinking approach in evaluating the merits of any assertion you become more consistent. And better at recognizing fluff and non-sense for what they are, fluff and non-sense. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
