Great piece, Brian. I’ve experienced something similar. My whole life I’ve been a fierce advocate of LGBTQ rights, with the exception of opposing trans women competing against women born women. My failure to hew to the party line has cost me some barbs from hard liners, despite our close agreement on nearly everything else.
While everything in this article is true, I think it better to focus our attention on accepting diversity within our community rather than accepting that differences of opinion ("schisms") *MUST* result in a split.
One of the first things I learned when I joined the skeptics community is that *every* person in the community holds some beliefs that a fair number of others in the community find objectionable and/or nonsensical. If there is to be any community of any kind anywhere, we must learn to accept our differences and focus on and emphasize our shared understanding, values, and beliefs. In the real world we are all different. And we need to learn to live with those differences, if not embrace them.
I hold some minority/deviant beliefs. And I'd be glad to discuss or argue my reasons with just about anyone.
Just looking at the three schisms that you listed as causing rifts and framentations, I would say that over time I have been on both sides of every one of them, to at least some extent.
We build community by accepting and possibly even embracing our differences, not by compounding them and separating ourselves by them. We must focus on our shared values, not our differences.
Saying “everyone holds some objectionable beliefs” is probably true in a general sense, but it risks equating harmless unorthodox views with harmful ones.
It’s important to differentiate between “minority/deviant beliefs” that are unconventional but intellectually valid, and those that are toxic or anti-rational.
That's a fair and important question, and it's a real challenge.
But we can't just say every opinion is equally valid, or we'll lose any way to tell right from wrong. In a skeptical community, we should use logic, evidence, and honesty to figure out if a belief, even an unusual one, is sound or if it's actually harmful to clear reasoning and conversation.
For example, Flat Earth belief. Holocaust denial, QAnon conspiracy theories, and "All vaccines are dangerous and part of a global control plot" beliefs don't just deviate from consensus; they actively reject the methods used to reach it. That’s the key distinction.
It's not about making everyone agree; it's about keeping our discussions honest and meaningful.
When I joined the skeptics community, I was surprised to find that *every* skeptic I met held some opinions and beliefs that I disagreed with.
But we form successful communities based on the values and beliefs we share, accepting that we will always have some differences.
Many differences can be resolved with information, education, and productive discussion. But some respectful discussions end with admission that we don't have sufficient information/knowledge yet. And some end with a fundamental difference in values and/or beliefs.
One thing I needed to learn, all those years ago, is to not be a jerk about it.
;->
Celebrate the values we share. Work to resolve our differences. Accept that some differences are not easily, quickly, or practically resolvable.
First, I am not saying you are wrong. Second, although I am a Skeptical Inquirer contributor and a former officer and past president of a defunct group called "Inquiring Skeptics of Upper NY" (ISUNY), I really don't consider myself part of "the skeptics community." I mean people are welcome to reach out, if geography enables it we could hang out, but you'll notice Mr Dunning's examples involve gatherings that involve people flying in from long distances and I don't do that. I think skepticism is important, but have not felt any sense of community from it for decades. If that were to change, great, but I don't expect it to change any time soon. So this is kind of an abstract, hypothetical thing. However, ISUNY, benefited from non-skeptic weirdo members, I think, although we never imagined such people would come to our meetings.
A few years ago I was asked to contribute to collection of essays on eye witness reliablity of UFO reports and it became a book and you can get an authorized PDF for free here (not a bootleg) and perhaps you would like to read about my experiences here:
Neither one nor the other is appropriate. Limited choice, appeal to emotion logic fallacy in that question. Scientific consensus and evidence to date are what should be utilized to define.
Hi Gail - You might be confusing this, my personal Substack, with Skeptoid Media. They are completely unrelated. This is a personal thing I do on evenings and weekends.
Great piece, Brian. I’ve experienced something similar. My whole life I’ve been a fierce advocate of LGBTQ rights, with the exception of opposing trans women competing against women born women. My failure to hew to the party line has cost me some barbs from hard liners, despite our close agreement on nearly everything else.
Darn. This being-human can be tough.
While everything in this article is true, I think it better to focus our attention on accepting diversity within our community rather than accepting that differences of opinion ("schisms") *MUST* result in a split.
One of the first things I learned when I joined the skeptics community is that *every* person in the community holds some beliefs that a fair number of others in the community find objectionable and/or nonsensical. If there is to be any community of any kind anywhere, we must learn to accept our differences and focus on and emphasize our shared understanding, values, and beliefs. In the real world we are all different. And we need to learn to live with those differences, if not embrace them.
I hold some minority/deviant beliefs. And I'd be glad to discuss or argue my reasons with just about anyone.
Just looking at the three schisms that you listed as causing rifts and framentations, I would say that over time I have been on both sides of every one of them, to at least some extent.
We build community by accepting and possibly even embracing our differences, not by compounding them and separating ourselves by them. We must focus on our shared values, not our differences.
Saying “everyone holds some objectionable beliefs” is probably true in a general sense, but it risks equating harmless unorthodox views with harmful ones.
It’s important to differentiate between “minority/deviant beliefs” that are unconventional but intellectually valid, and those that are toxic or anti-rational.
Do I get to define what is toxic and/or anti-rational or do you get to define it?
That's a fair and important question, and it's a real challenge.
But we can't just say every opinion is equally valid, or we'll lose any way to tell right from wrong. In a skeptical community, we should use logic, evidence, and honesty to figure out if a belief, even an unusual one, is sound or if it's actually harmful to clear reasoning and conversation.
For example, Flat Earth belief. Holocaust denial, QAnon conspiracy theories, and "All vaccines are dangerous and part of a global control plot" beliefs don't just deviate from consensus; they actively reject the methods used to reach it. That’s the key distinction.
It's not about making everyone agree; it's about keeping our discussions honest and meaningful.
When I joined the skeptics community, I was surprised to find that *every* skeptic I met held some opinions and beliefs that I disagreed with.
But we form successful communities based on the values and beliefs we share, accepting that we will always have some differences.
Many differences can be resolved with information, education, and productive discussion. But some respectful discussions end with admission that we don't have sufficient information/knowledge yet. And some end with a fundamental difference in values and/or beliefs.
One thing I needed to learn, all those years ago, is to not be a jerk about it.
;->
Celebrate the values we share. Work to resolve our differences. Accept that some differences are not easily, quickly, or practically resolvable.
I'm not sure. I was involved much more with organized skepticism in the 1990s than now.
What’s your hesitation rooted in?
First, I am not saying you are wrong. Second, although I am a Skeptical Inquirer contributor and a former officer and past president of a defunct group called "Inquiring Skeptics of Upper NY" (ISUNY), I really don't consider myself part of "the skeptics community." I mean people are welcome to reach out, if geography enables it we could hang out, but you'll notice Mr Dunning's examples involve gatherings that involve people flying in from long distances and I don't do that. I think skepticism is important, but have not felt any sense of community from it for decades. If that were to change, great, but I don't expect it to change any time soon. So this is kind of an abstract, hypothetical thing. However, ISUNY, benefited from non-skeptic weirdo members, I think, although we never imagined such people would come to our meetings.
A few years ago I was asked to contribute to collection of essays on eye witness reliablity of UFO reports and it became a book and you can get an authorized PDF for free here (not a bootleg) and perhaps you would like to read about my experiences here:
https://www.academia.edu/105809707/Reliability_of_UFO_Witness_Testimony_in_Extreme_Close_Encounters_Abductees_and_Contactees_
Neither one nor the other is appropriate. Limited choice, appeal to emotion logic fallacy in that question. Scientific consensus and evidence to date are what should be utilized to define.
Brilliant.
Firstly, I am already a paid subscriber and have been for many years.
Secondly, I am happy that you keep sending me these emails asking me to upgrade to paid because they are very interesting.
Finally, this one is really fantastic. If WE can’t figure out how to disagree with respect, then how can any democracy flourish?
Hi Gail - You might be confusing this, my personal Substack, with Skeptoid Media. They are completely unrelated. This is a personal thing I do on evenings and weekends.
"Not only do lasting harm but also strengthen it"?
How does that work?
This article reads like it's addressing a controversy that no one knows about...yet, and is an attempt to get ahead of something.