Skeptic Project

Most the members who used to post here put in years of debunking online, and I can't speak for them, but I think they are pretty much over it all now and are kind of jaded to the whole debating stupid people and their beliefs. That is at least how I see it, and it's how I feel about it all so maybe I am just projecting. Mostly the members here put in efforts debunking seriously, then just hung around here laughing at the stupidity of people.

Not sure how active the managers of this site actually are, but I would expect that their real lives are currently taking priority and debunking on the Internets is a backseat issue.

You should probably just go ahead with it and leave an open invite here for any member who would be interested I reckon, since I think it unlikely, Edward, Roxie, Muertos and all the other old lot would be around to get involved.

@Edward L Winston

Sounds good Ed. As I have said to Rox unlike what CT's believe SP members do not get paid to do this so in my opinion no one should feel pressured to contribute things as this is a hobby. I appreciate anything anybody puts up on this site but they should never feel pressured or go out of there way to do things that would be a inconvenience to them in there real life but rather they should do things when they feel compelled to and when it's convenient for them.

Edward this may sound dumb but it seems that some of links of SP site are what seem to be in alpha phases. I am wondering if there can be a section dedicated to explain the concept behind for example "team review" and how it works/is suppose to work or the "predictions" tab or anything else. Maybe I can help out in the design down the road with Rox when I have time. I'm still working on updating the reference links in all the blogs still.




@anticultist

I would agree with that. I remember Edward saying it's not worth the time to try to even convert a CT over but rather be patient with CT's and maybe eventually they will start using critical thinking skills at which may let them see things from a more rational perspective.

I personally do not mind debunking CT's however debunking CT's nowadays is like trying to debunk far right creationists. It's so ingrained into who they are that they take debunking that has valid criticism against there ideology on a personal level rather than just perceive it as honest criticism. CT's/medical woo chant there belief system like it's a religion more than if it's based on any facts. It seems nowadays the best debunk tactic is to put up a debunk of some weird new CT, then wait for them to come to you or go to them and talk to those willing to listen but be tactful and follow the rules that they have established but share opposing views. In the long run though it can be time consuming doing this and one has to wonder as to when this part time hobby started to become a fulltime none paying job.




"Clock: Please tell me what you think about this, or anything to add or what your consensus is on the whole idea. I believe that it is time for the Skeptic Project to have some developments."

@Clock Most members on SP at least the active ones are in SP facebook. I first came to SP which was formally called conspiracy science through the website first but eventually made it onto SP FB. The majority of the activity has always been on SP FB which is restrictive do the CT's (which is the same reason registration is restrictive on the SP site as well).

Most people who contribute do so because they feel compelled to. I would imagine there hasn't been much development because in the CT realm it seems to be the same old bump and grind. If a person, lets say in this case you feels compelled to debunk something then go ahead and do so. For myself although I do not write blogs, I have debunked BS here and there, and I feel more compelled to help people out on my mumble server every sunday in different ways, applying skepticism where I can. I've also tried to formulate a RBE criteria list which is at the back burner right now.

Clock if you do start debunking on SP in some way, just keep in mind as to what SP is about. I went on metabunk.org and as they are a debunking site there policies such as the politeness policy (http://metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy) requiring individuals to be "polite to one another, and constructive in their criticism.", "Any comments that contain insults, direct or implied, may be edited or removed." or "This does not mean you should avoid telling people they are wrong, simply that you be polite about it, and that you" are drastically different from what SP is. I believe I would be banned off the majority of skeptic sites out there hence I only post on this and another skeptic site. I'm not here to be nice, perfect, or polite, I'm here to be skeptic which would include being straightforward and to the point.

I appreciate the freedom to be able to poke fun at CT's or express my thoughts without having to know the rules of the site inside and out before hand. I also appreciate the fact that most SP members will reference the information they used when they are talking about a debunk. I really do not like it when a person debunks something but never shows the reference material at that they even try to justify why they will not show the reference material because of course "It's not there job", I want to read where he or she is getting there information from. As far as internet communication goes, I contribute and communicate a lot in medium to small sized tech communities which are often loose in the rules but also the people on those sites are very straightforward and very honest in there criticisms when it comes to coding or anything else. So when I came across SP it fit me very well as the people of this community have a very similar mindset.

http://skepticproject.com/site/about/

About

Skeptic Project (The Website formally known as Conspiracy Science) is an online community of skeptics, freethinkers, and others which aims to look into extraordinary and bizarre claims made by individuals in the conspiracy, paranormal, alternative health, and pseudo-scientific communities. The site began in late 2007 with a series of articles analyzing some popular conspiracy theories on the Internet at the time.

There are two types of content on the site, the first being contributed, which is essentially anything that's posted by any member that holds some sort of value information-wise. Contributed content can be voted on by other members, updated, appended, etc. The other type of content is reviewed content, which are articles created from contributed content that go into great detail on a given topic or sometimes entire film. All reviewed content is critiqued by the Editing Committee, which itself is made up of the largest contributors to the site.

The community's lax rules, yet ironically high standards for reviewed content, has helped it stand out in the broader skeptic and debunking communities, but also of course made it quite despised in conspiracy communities.

In short insulting, poking fun, and other things on SP are fine, however when it comes to debunking make sure you back up your information with academic credible sources. Sourcing your material in a debunk is in my opinion very important, if you can't source the material it's not worth having it in a debunk. A individual does not have to respect me or anybody in this community, however when a person makes a claim they better upon request back it up with a credible reference or it will be ignored.

@Clock

I can appreciate that you appreciate my sentiments but I wasn't necessarily offering advice to you, however I was saying that if you write debunking articles on SP you can expand your horizons a bit and be horribly honest rather than being polite. I saw on Metabunks site a guy called I believe his name was Mick (who is the admin who orchestrated the polite policy http://metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy) said Muertos blogs were good but that he wished Muertos was polite in writing that blog. Although I never thought of Muertos blogs as being insulting, you do not have to be polite on SP but you do have to get your facts straight. That's all I really wanted to get across when it pertained to that.


http://metabunk.org/threads/1202-The-Usual-Retorts-Conspiracy-Theorists%E2%80%99-Top-10-Misconceptions-of-Debunkers?p=29132&viewfull=1#post29132

Mick Administrator of Metabunk.org response to what Muertos blog: Nice, it's a pity he retired. What he says goes pretty well with my debunking philosophy, but he's a bit less polite.

Quote from Clock

@King

King, I posted the 'Usual Retorts' article. Look on the left. lol

I know