From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Faq List for skeptics, 1
Date: 1 Sep 92 10:44:19 GMT

Well, nobody asked me to post it, but here's my list of questions I as a
skeptics' group officer hear most often from the general public, and
some of the possible answers to them.  Of course, many approaches are
possible, but this is what works for me.

As I mentioned to Lee Thomas, I've gotten some interesting, literate,
thoughtful suggestions as suggested answers and additional questions,
but few that fit the list's stated purpose (the notable exception being
a very good post by Jan Willem Nienhuys): giving the public a _brief_
sense of what skeptics are interested in, and _briefly_ dispelling
misconceptions. Ideally, in my opinion, one's answers should convey
(without jargon, logic-chopping, etc.) -- along with literal answers to
the questions -- tolerance, a sense of humour, reasonableness, due
modesty, and respect for one's audience.

In my experience, these questions are asked not so much to solicit
answers as to test the questioner's suspicion that you're a strange kind
of nutcase, an ideologue who's for some reason out to "get" perfectly
harmless New Agers and such.  If you as a skeptical speaker want to be
taken seriously and listened to, you must cast doubt on that suspicion
and make a good first impression in your answer.

_Some_ self-described skeptics don't mind being dismissed as cranks, and
seek the company of skeptics primarily to experience companionship in
what they consider their higher rationality.  I would urge -- nay, plead
with -- such people to take up stamp-collecting instead, and stay far,
far away from skeptics' groups.  (Also, buy a big personal-liability
policy, since you'll be heading for a major defamation lawsuit, if
you're unlucky enough to become significant.)

So, here's my current effort at answering typical, unsophisticated
"So you're a skeptic" questions:

1.  If it doesn't hurt anyone, why bother?

Skeptics are simply curious about which fringe-science claims have
merit, and which don't.  It's a hobby.  Of course, some such claims
(like psychic surgery) DO hurt people, and skeptics disclose that.
Other claims don't hurt people, but that's beside the point -- is the
claim _bogus_ or not?  Many fringe-science fans consider truth merely a
booby-prize.  Skeptics don't:  Although they don't claim to have a
lockhold on it, they DO pursue it.

2.  You say it doesn't work, but how do you explain x anecdote?

Hey, you got it wrong:  I never volunteered to explain everyone's weird
stories.  Of course, I LIKE weird stories, especially unexplained ones,
but some are unexplained because of missing details or ones that the
questioner (totally honestly) has gotten wrong, and maybe some will
never be explained.  The point is for YOU, not me, to look for
alternative, conventional explanations before jumping to conclusions.
Now, if you want, I can tell you about a similar, baffling case that I
DID explain when I chased down enough facts . . . .

3.  What do skeptics believe, anyhow?  What's a skeptic?

You might as well ask what a carpenter believes.  Carpentry isn't a
belief:  It's the effective application of tools.  That's also what
skeptics do, in their case with _mental_ tools applied to claims on the
fringes of science, tools like scientific methods, old-fashioned
footwork, and checking whether those claims contradict themselves.

4.  When did you become a skeptic?

That's kind of like asking me when I finally started thinking just a
bit.  I've always been a bit interested in this stuff because it's fun,
but noticed organised skeptics' efforts starting in 1975, and in 1982
found a local group that intrigued and entertained me enough to get
involved with it.  Maybe I was given a push when my congressman, Leo
Ryan, was murdered by a sometime faith-healer and his cult in Guyana,
in 1978.

5.  What do skeptics think about spiritual matters?  Are skeptics
atheists?

No, skeptics basically aren't involved with religious issues, and their
own religious beliefs, in their private lives, are all over the map.
Religion is mostly concerned with questions like "what must I do and not
do" and "what must I take on pure faith".  Skeptics _as skeptics_ are
curious about claims (on the fringes of science) that can be checked for
evidence, not about morals or pure faith.  However, some matters of
_evidence_ that are CALLED religious, such as faith-healing and
so-called scientific creationism, are skeptics' business as testable
claims, rather than as religion.
 
[cont'd to part 2 of 2...]

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)