From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faq list for skeptics
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:15:12 GMT

In article <LEET.92Aug28084155@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
spake thusly:
 
>>>>>> On 25 Aug 92 09:34:29 GMT, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG
>>>>>> (Rick
> Moen) said:
> 
> Rick> 9.  Isn't skepticism a closed-minded, dogmatic position?  How
> can you Rick> pretend to do impartial inquiry when you are logical
> positivists / Rick> fundamentalist materialists / secular humanists /
> ... ?
> Is this really a fair assessment of skeptical philosophy, or are there
> many skeptics who would disagree with the principles espoused in
> either version of the Humanist Manifesto?
> 
> This is an honest inquiry, not a desire to start a debate.
 
Of course.
 
If I've learned any one thing from sixteen years of acquaintance with
skeptics, it is that one can find skeptics who'll disagree with 
anything.  In fact, the amount of philosophy held in common among
skeptics is awfully modest, pretty much to the effect that scientific
methods, and other means of critical inquiry, are empirically and 
theoretically effective tools for tentatively answering many (but not
all) questions about the world and how it works.
 
Humanist Manifestos I and II deal with moral questions, which are not
of primary concern to skeptics.  Skeptics' writings, on the other hand,
deal with claims of testable fact, which are not of primary concern to
humanists.  My own skeptics' group, Bay Area Skeptics, has among its
subscribers students at theological seminaries, and nuns.  To be sure,
we've never asked how many agree with the AHA's Humanist Manifestos, but
the point is that we have skipped doing so because it isn't relevant.
 
Getting back to the FAQ list for skeptics (as distinct from any FAQ file
for this newsgroup), I've been meaning to mention that the responses 
I've been getting in the group and in private mail have been interesting
but mostly not helpful.  (But, hey, what are newsgroups for, right?  
;->  )   The point of my initial posting was that these are extremely
common questions, entailing erroneous fundamental assumptions, that 
spokesmen for skeptics must learn to field effectively, frequently, with 
a sense of humour, and with an air of benignity and tolerance. 
 
Above all, skeptics must learn to answer them _briefly_.  Perhaps I 
shouldn't expect that from a newsgroup ;->  , but, really, you usually 
have about twenty seconds or forty words to make your point to the 
public at large.  You are asked them by people who are moderately
curious about skeptics, who are making conversation about your strange
hobby, who want to decide quickly whether to dismiss you as an odd sort 
of blowhard crank, and who aren't interested in a lecture on philosophy.
However, they are your opening, your chance to establish that you are
a reasonable, interesting person worth listening to, and your chance
to start dispelling misconceptions that are widely held concerning
skeptics, spread in some cases by hostile parties.  (I'll bet _Fate_
still handily outdoes _Skeptical Inquirer's_ circulation.)
 
As I said earlier, my draft replies attempt to briefly counter what I
see as those false assumptions.  If I have time later this evening, I'll
see about typing my current efforts in to this newsgroup.
 
Best Regards,          "En boca cerrada no entran moscas."
Rick Moen, Director                     -- Spanish proverb
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet