From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faq List for skeptics
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:40:28 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:

> Hullo again.  I just got back a few minutes ago from the CSICOP workshop
> in Eugene, Oregon.  (Pardon me if I'm a bit tired and not contributing
> my best writing.)  One of the many things we discussed was a Frequently
> Asked Questions list for skeptical activists.  Robert McGrath told me
> yesterday that there had been an effort to construct one for this
> newsgroup, so it seemed logical to solicit suggestions for my own
> modest effort along those same lines.
        Etcetera. I buffered the heroic attempt made by someone else not too 
long ago, but I haven't had a chance to make comments. I might as well add a 
few things that just occurred to me while I was reading Rick's note.

        Seems that we have two issues to address in a Skeptics' FAQ. the 
first is to define what the skeptics are, somewhat, and to present quick 
summaries of what could be called 'skeptics' positions' on the major topics 
we address. Both of these are going to be pretty rough.

        The issue of what topics skeptics are involved with is knotty, simply 
because there are so many across a wide variety of disciplines. The issues 
involved in UFO sighting investigations aren't exactly the same as addresing 
UFO abduction claims, and these aren't very similar to the issues involved in 
investigating psychic claims or firewalking or the Bermuda Triangle. So we're 
bound to have a pretty long list, and there are some topics that might seem 
afield for the skeptics.

        For example, the proposed skeptics' FAQ that was posted dealt with 
conspiracy theories to an extent, probably because that was a big topic on 
this newsgroup. But it's rare that the _Skeptical Inquirer_ would address 
such things, unlessit involved some kind of scientific claim-- UFO coverups, 
for example. My feeling is that, even though conspiracy theories have that 
classic 'fringey' sense to them, it's a bit outside the skeptics' domain.

        On the other hand, nobody would doubt that astrology, psychics, 
biorhthyms, Scientology or Bigfoot would qualify. I guess that a manageable 
approach would be to address what appear to be 'core' topics, and leave off 
with a cautionary note about things that aren't included.

        As for what skeptics believe, again we have a small minefield. One 
particularly touchy issue is religion and skepticism. Some religious claims 
would certainlycome under scrutiny (say, the image of Mary at Guadalupe, 
faith healing, and the like), and one could find a 'skeptics' position' on 
them. But there are religious people who are concerned with the misuses of 
their faith, and many are concerned that addressing such things as the 
Crucifixion, or thestory of Exodus, would be insulting to people who would 
normally be our allies. So some topics are treated with a diplomatic 'no 
comment,' at least as far as any public statements in a skeptics' FAQ would 
go.

        One, one last matter. It'd be a damn fine idea to make it very clear 
that the skeptics' FAQ is NOT an official statement of CSICOP, but a 
consensus document written by a group of Usenetters who were comparing 
opinions.Some people are pretty litigation-minded, y'know.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au