There have been a couple of posts on Podblack Cat recently about sceptical blogging that I have been reading and taking note since I am quite new to all this. Whilst I have been a sceptic for some time it has only been the past year or so that I have become more active in the community; reading blogs, listening to podcasts and finally starting my own blog a few months ago.
As Podblack (what’s the etiquette here do I use her blogging name or real name?!) pointed out in her first post it is not for lack of material that I find holds me back from posting more often. Firstly it is a matter of time; being sceptically inclined means that there is an inherent desire to make sure that all my serious posts are researched and don’t contain any serious errors. So while I might be happy to just sound off about something to my friends and colleagues when it comes to putting it to blog I want to spend the time to make my argument coherent, factually accurate and with at least a couple of decent references. Secondly is that rightly or wrongly there is some reverence on my behalf to other bloggers and scientists who not only are covering the same material but are also far more qualified to do so. Obviously this does not stop me posting entirely and I think I am starting to get over this initial hurdle of thinking ‘what the hell do I have to say on this?’ It is this point that brings me onto something that was raised in the next blog post on this topic.
Some of the points made in Podblack’s blog were collated from other sceptics, of these there was one particular point that I am not sure about and that did not seem to represent the general consensus of previous posts. I believe it was from @newhumanist’s twitter feed and read; “Skeptics: don’t opine outside expertise!” This seems a rather broad and constricting thing to say. At what point does one become an expert in something? How can any sceptic honestly argue for non experts never giving their opinion about something? To only be expected to comment on things that you are an expert in sounds a lot like an argument from authority to me. Providing your research/evidence is accurate and your argument is reasonable then you have every right regardless of your experience in a field to pass comment. It is exactly the fear of feeling that I am not an expert in any particular field that sometimes causes me to hesitate before writing, to read that note did nothing to boost my confidence in a post specifically aimed at new sceptical bloggers.
This aside I think the Podblack’s posts on this topic have been excellent and well worth a read to any other new sceptical bloggers out there.
3 Responses to “‘Newbie skeptic’ blogger on blogging”
Sean the Blogonaut wrote on September 27th, 2009 12:35 pm :
There are also different types of bloggers too. Some collate and present the work of experts filling a journalistic role I suppose. There are also so some areas that its questionable what being an expert entails. To criticize a performer for cold reading do you need a degree in psychology, or would an illusionist fit the bill.
I think try to be as factual as possible and be prepared to be wrong and accept it when you are
uksceptic wrote on September 27th, 2009 4:20 pm :
Thanks for your comments!
Podblack – I agree that there can be and are less admirable role models in skeptism as there is in any walk of life. But even the most admirable and seemingly infallible role models are capable of mistakes and the most idiotic are capable of having a point. I guess I was just reiterating your previous comments that each blog post, article or twitter comment should be judged on it’s merits alone lest we all decend into arguments from authority.
I hope that I can find my niche as a blogger, as I said I am new to this community, hopefully as I read more and get involved more I will find my niche and work it!
Sean – Would amature magician fit the bill?! Although its been a while since I last performed.
The quote is from Daniel Loxton, and is limited by the 140 characters, I’d propose. I’d suggest asking him further to see if he has more to say? He’s probably come up across some issues with it in the past.
For my own part – since anyone can sign up for Blogspot/Wordpress/whathaveyou, it does seem a valid point – does this risk reducing popular online analysis of paranormal and pseudoscientific topics to dogma and / or catchphrases from less than admirable role-models (and there are some in skepticism, as there are in any group of people, quite frankly)?
I had my doubts, for example, over the legitimacy of Wikipedia (still do) and it’s the basis of an earlier post I wrote about how internet advocacy isn’t really the ‘be all and end all’ as I’ve heard some tout it to be. Yes, there’s good stuff out there. But we should be critical readers as well as writers. Push oneself to meet standards that we expect.
“Nothing to boost my confidence” – then I’d say that it’s again back to your purpose in blogging – are you posing as an expert? Be upfront (as you are) if you are not and cite sources seems fair enough to me.
We can be wrong – been wrong myself in the past. That’s okay, we’re not super-human.
As Daniel said (more recently on Twitter) – “As skepticism 2.0 grows more popular and more amateur, the question gets sharper: is this a social club, or a research discipline, or what?” I guess that’s another thing to think about in regards to one is doing with a site. I think I mix a little ‘socialising’ in mine, to make it fun. It’s also the basis of the podcast (Skeptic Zone) that I report for.
Nothing wrong with that. Find your niche, work it.