General Discussions > Skepticism / Science Talk
Representatives of Skepticism
Kwisatz Haderach:
The "Disillusioned" thread and the various "Rebecca is Controversial" threads have got me thinking about which popular skeptics I feel best represent the ideal face of skepticism.
Steve Novella, of course, is someone who most of us would agree is great at being a voice of reason. His public person seems to be as close to detached from conclusions and focused exclusively on the process of science as a human being can reasonably be expected to get.
Eugenie Scott is another near-universally respected skeptical spokesperson. She deals primarily with a subject that can be quite contentious, and does so with great tact and sensitivity while not comprising the science at all.
Neil Tyson might be one, but is he really a representative of skeptism per se? I see him as someone more like Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov -- someone too focused on educating real people to lead a movement of dorks like us.
What do you think?
Who else?
ting-bu-dong:
Whether Tyson belongs on that list depends on how you define skepticism. If it's rationalism in a broader sense, then definetely. If it's specifically criticism of popular nonsense, then probably not. That's not a minor point, because some atheist activists are going to be mentioned in this thread sooner or later.
I'd add Joe Nickell to the list, even though he doesn't have a very high profile outside skepticism. One of the first SGU episodes I listened to was his interview, and that sold me on the idea that there's more to skepticism than talking about how things aren't real. I think he strikes the ideal balance between being a nice guy while not compromising the facts.
Massimo Pigliucci is great. I'd put in him in one league with Steve Novella for the same reasons you mentioned.
Citizen Skeptic:
Randi. Penn.
Last time we had a discussion about leadership in the skeptical movement as being antithetical to the movement.
Kwisatz Haderach:
--- Quote from: Citizen Skeptic on Jun 29, 2012, 01:53:13 PM ---Randi. Penn.
Last time we had a discussion about leadership in the skeptical movement as being antithetical to the movement.
--- End quote ---
I am talking about representatives of skepticism, not leaders.
I cannot think of worse representatives of skpeticism than Randi or Penn. Maybe Dawkins -- Dawkins might be worse. Randi may be very knowledgeable about who people are fooled, but he does not seem to have much respect for science. Penn only embraces science when it happens to coincide with his political and philosophical ideals. Don't even get me started on Dawkins. These people seem to be more concerned with mocking people they disagree with than educating them; not the sort of people who I think reflect positively on skepticism.
But to get back on track, I am wondering who we see as people who represent how we would like the general public think of skeptics.
I chose Steve and Eugenie because they are both very focused on science as a method of understanding the universe, and seem to be more about educating people with who they disagree than mocking them.
Citizen Skeptic:
--- Quote from: Kwisatz Haderach on Jun 29, 2012, 02:24:31 PM ---
--- Quote from: Citizen Skeptic on Jun 29, 2012, 01:53:13 PM ---Randi. Penn.
Last time we had a discussion about leadership in the skeptical movement as being antithetical to the movement.
--- End quote ---
I am talking about representatives of skepticism, not leaders.
--- End quote ---
Ah, got you. Good faces. Strike Dawkins on that one. He's way too angry.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version