I am of the skeptical bent.  My training is in the sciences and I'm heavily influenced by the likes of Russel and Karl Popper.  I imagine myself as being guided by evidence and reason, though I am aware that I have the same cognitive and social biases that all people who share my neural structure possess.  As much as possible I try to be on the look out for my own failings and do try and avoid making mistakes.  Though as people who have read what I've written are most likely well aware I'm not always the best at doing this.

Good skeptical practice means applying the idea of skepticism to  both the world and oneself.  However there is a different group that identifies themselves as skeptics but are nothing of the sort.  For want of a better term they are the "Laugh at the superstitious freaks with their strange beliefs" brigade.  While they claim the label of skeptic they are more interested in making themselves feel superior, they are prepared to critically examine other people's unsupported beliefs but have a massive blind spot when it comes to their own.

I have found that skepticism is a fine tool for assessing truth claims and the core claims of the anti feminists have failed skeptical analysis.  The conflict isn't between the skeptics and feminism but between people who claim to be skeptics and those that practice skeptical thought.
Shared publiclyView activity