Skeptics in the Pub: what’s the point?
I’ve been running Guildford Skeptics in the Pub (SitP) for a little while now (it was established in April 2011, but I wasn’t involved in setting it up) and as my numbers ebb and flow and I’ve started giving my own talks, it’s set me wondering about the point of it and how it can be improved.
Skeptical ladies
Moving on from when it was unacceptable for women to have interests of their own
The involvement of women in skepticism has come up a lot recently and I think it’s an important point. I’ve written about female skeptics and the dearth of them in the ‘community’ before, (the existence of which many are skeptical of, but I have to refer to it as such in order to comment on it) but that isn’t the main point that I want to address.
What can be done to make Skeptics in the Pub better, overall, for visit here everyone? A place where everyone is happy is the most conducive environment I can think of to encourage people to come along, whatever gender they are. Although skepticism is demonstrably male dominated (why is a whole ‘nother blog post), it doesn’t need to be that way forever.
I’m a bit of a SitP fan: I have been to as many as I can (within geographical boundaries!), including Brighton, Horsham, Winchester, London, Westminster, Hackney and of course my own, in Guildford. What’s more, two new ones have sprung up, in Tunbridge Wells and Kingston, which are very near me.
The organiser becomes the speaker
Recently I spoke at Hackney SitP and had the toughest audience of all: a knowledgeable one. It’s pretty easy to give a talk on your pet subject if you know more than they do about it, but these were parents of children on the Autistic spectrum and there was also one audience member who was on the spectrum herself.
This lady, J, made some excellent points in the Q&A section, including making it known that the event was not accessible enough to her: constructive criticism I will take note of for the future.
Since meeting her last week, we’ve exchanged a few emails. Two of her points really struck me:
“I think it is always worth bearing in mind that some people may stumble into your talk as I did, attracted not so much by the skepticism as by the subject of the talk, in this case autism. ”
“If skepticism is just about asking for evidence, then I think that needs to be explained more clearly. Even if it is a misunderstanding, the common understanding of ‘scepticism’ is about doubt, cynicism etc, and the word carries an image which is quite sneering and snotty. I very strongly support a rigorous, scientific approach to knowledge, which may well mean I am a skeptic by your definition, but there is an apparent edge to it that I am not comfortable with.“
These two points have been bugging me since I read them.
Uncomfortable connotations
As SitP organisers, I think we have a real responsibility to do a PR job on the idea of skepticism as a method and a way of seeing the world. Skepticism and critical thinking are very healthy and beneficial methods for making the most of life and I think anyone who isn’t making that clear at their evenings might be missing an opportunity.
This is something that I’ve discussed with the host of Horsham Skeptics, Simon Clare, who surveyed a few people, very unscientifically, on Facebook about what they thought skepticism meant to the average person. Unsurprisingly, the rather sneering, cynical edge that J mentioned above was fairly prominent in the results.
As a SitP convener, I try my best to make things as inclusive as I can – I’d happily welcome Babbo bimatoprost is a prescription medication used for the treatment of glaucoma. anyone, with whatever views, to my talks, but I think I can do more.
Doing SitP is more than providing a comfortable seat
I want people to feel comfortable as an absolute minimum: they shouldn’t have to worry about expressing an opinion or asking a question they might not know the answer to. The biggest problem I’ve ever encountered (and I am lucky in this respect) is that people get a bit overenthusiastic and the more outgoing in the room ask more questions and make more points than those who are less extroverted.
- From now on I will make it known that the Q&A is more like a conversation than a firing of questions and points – turn-taking is expected. We must learn to share that month’s speaker!
- I think I should make it clearer at every meeting what skepticism is and why we sit in the back room of a pub and learn new things once a month.
- I will emphasise respect, courtesy and civility to everyone.
- I think I can help promote skepticism as being a tool for exploring, explaining, describing and discovering; not a method for patronising, sneering or as a way of back-slapping congratulations or showing how clever we are.
Why do I care so much?
No, not this kind of Placebo
Simon has also put pen to paper this week, on a similar subject, “why I won’t live and let live”, about why he can’t let people get away with peddling misinformation in the shape of placebo pills or pretending to convene with the departed. You can read it here (page 11)
“If we are aware of injustice yet do not speak out against it, we are complicit in it.
“[Some] might not see the problem with pretend psychics… but I do and I will speak out against them in the hope that fewer vulnerable people are duped.
“Such issues may not be important to everybody and they are welcome to remain silent. They are important to me, so I will speak out”
Growing our skeptical base
If I was a proper skeptic and I had a beard, it would look like this
But there’s more too – I haven’t quite finished. I don’t want to just play to the same crowds every month – I want skepticism to spread and for the people of Surrey, Kent and Sussex to come along to all these great events that we’re holding down here in the beautiful south, just underneath the bustling city life of London (where they have three SitPs of their own).
We can’t do that if we’re not promoting skeptics as people other than just a bunch of grumpy, contrary old men with beards*, “saying it ain’t so”.
The biggest problem with Skeptics in the pub is the word ‘Skeptics’.
Apart from the few who know a bit of philosophy, most of the people I mention it to immediately think it’s a bunch of boring farts in a pub being pedantic about stuff. It has the same PR effect as the TV advert for Lucky Strikes with the chap walking to the middle of a bridge by himself smoking a cigarette. Everybody’s first thought is that he’s going to jump off the bridge. ‘Skeptics’ may be absolutely the right word descriptively, but it gives a terrible impression.
So how about thinking up a new word? Here are a few ideas:
Answers
Questions
Science
Enquirers
Thinkers
Rationalists
No-dogma
I know that none of these are perfect and I’m sure that you can come up with better ones, but none of them have the negative connotations of ‘Skeptic’.
I understand the need or desire to come up with a new word or to use an existing one in place of the dirty word of ‘skeptic’, but I think the best option is to do our best to reclaim skeptic and skepticism. There’s no reason that can’t be done. Language is as flexible one way as it is another.
I believe that the behaviour of a self-identifying skeptic, especially one running a SitP, is pretty much key to that.