On Twitter Mike Feldman (@mike_feldman) of NYC Skeptics solicited for topics to address during his upcoming Grassroots Skeptics panel at The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas in a few weeks. (This is separate from the workshop in which I’ll be giving a short talk at the event.)
Half in jest, but with an intent to shock those who tend to think in the limited terms of the present and past, I wrote:
My Shirkyesque take on the topic may be a bit much for your panel: I’d offer that the most valuable bottom-up efforts of our skeptical future will bypass (rather than engage) our conservative and slow-to-act organizations. Instead they will employ tools only now in their infancy to harness large numbers of individuals collectively to meet needs that few (if any) of us can now anticipate.
To Daniel Loxton (@daniel_loxton) who has accused me (me!) of being a utopian (ha!) I’ll dare to up the ante:
Those who spawn and participate in these efforts will by and large not identify as skeptics or be aware of the fixtures of organized skepticism.
Daniel had wrote:
Whatever the role of the orgs, a lot of grassroots efforts run aground over these scope and tone arguments. Navigating those seems to be a central challenge.
I’d agree and would add that these are challenges faced by skepticism in general, as it should be evident that our pros and even our orgs aren’t above making rookie mistakes. (Examples: Randi’s initial support for the Petition Project, PZ’s reputed excesses, or the public sniping surrounding Kurtz’ departure from CFI.)
As far as how these bottom-up efforts can strike the right tone and find the right focus, that’s a complex and interesting question. Generally speaking, I’d think the crowd will tend to gravitate towards its own focus and set its own path for the future of skepticism. The most the pros (and orgs) can do is to nudge the crowd—to inspire its members to uphold certain principles and oppose that which is destructive to our traditional goals.
June 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Ha! I disagree with you both! Partially, anyway.
I don’t think those questions are a huge problem for organizations themselves. A strong and clear mission statement takes care of that.
I think the community in general will always be somewhat divided on some issues. Sometimes it’s healthy. Sometimes it’s not.
June 17, 2010 at 10:37 pm
A clear mission statement can help, but it’s not a bulletproof defense. Keep in mind that there are at least several examples of skeptical groups at the regional and local level that also fell prey to such sniping and infighting. I’d bet most of them had very clear mission statements and perished in spite of them.
June 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm
So, Reed. We meet again!
(Funny thing about your second gauntlet is that I see a fair bit of the opposite: grassroots efforts that identify with the “skeptic” label but diverge from the traditional mandate. That said, I’m happy to note that a great many wonderful grassroots projects embrace both — and, indeed, those high quality grassroots projects are among most important things to happen to skepticism in decades.)
June 17, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Agreed that the label appropriation is alive and well. We saw that from the paranormal groups at Dragon*Con last year as an example. That’s only mildly interesting compared to my second gauntlet, which is asserting an entirely different situation.
Look at John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” site as an example. From his use of the term ‘skeptic’ I’d assume that he doesn’t identify with the skeptical community. I could be wrong on that assumption, but the point holds that there will be people like him who will be doing work of great value to skeptics.
For more of a collective example, note the dozens (hundreds?) of editors keeping the Wikipedia pages of special interest to skeptics up to date and fighting off vandalism. I don’t think we know how many of those active editors are involved in our community (attending TAM, etc.) but I’d wager the number is small.
June 18, 2010 at 6:12 am
I must politely disagree with Reed. At least for those of us who live in towns with healthy, functioning skeptical organizations (such as Skeptics Society in southern California), the group is a powerful influence. This Society has huge turnouts for our “Sunday go-to-meetings” and reaches tens of thousands through its magazine and eSkeptic. And I’ve heard stories of those isolated skeptics and atheists living in smaller towns who have now banded together and formed their own local groups, which offers valuable support and a network of like-minded individuals, and ends the feelings of isolation that so many atheists/skeptics must endure (especially in religious small towns). I take it as a good sign that these groups are growing nationwide, and that the census numbers show that non-believers are now almost 25% of the population. Bit by bit, we’re becoming established and influential!
June 18, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Hello Donald. We met briefly at the Burbank AAI conference last October where I butchered your last name.
I’m not opposed to groups in general, but rather I’m opposed to naive calls to organize new groups that ignore the pitfalls and failures of earlier skeptical efforts. To not carefully examine those failures and develop/adopt/adapt models that are within reach of part-time amateurs is to set ourselves up for yet more failed efforts that risk quashing the enthusiasm of many.
I’m envious that LA can support at least two large skeptic-focused organizations, but you guys are by far the exception. It’s presently very difficult to replicate your success and sustain healthy groups in smaller markets.