On Skepticism

The local skeptics group here in Omaha is called REASON. I subscribe to their email list, and recently there was an interesting thread concerning the group's focus and whether some of the topics on the listserv were appropriate to the group. The problem, as J. sees it, is that people who would otherwise be interested in joining REASON avoid the group because of the many political discussions. In J's words,

I think there's a very good chance that the group is self-limiting its membership by "broadening its horizons" so far as to alienate people who would otherwise be interested in the group.

J. cited a recent thread discussing gun control as a topic that was mostly political instead of skeptical or rational. He cited evolution vs. creationism as one topic that several friends of his would be interested in, if only the political overtones of the list were removed.

As always, the ensuing discussion was insightful and courteous. One thing that I found interesting is that J's complaint was concerning politics. It seems that most of the time when the scope of a skeptics group comes up, the complaint is about religion. In both cases, the idea is that by extending discussion to the offending topic, the group would is driving away potential members.

And anything that would cause more people to allow skepticism to enter their lives is a good thing to me. But while I'm all for trying anything that would get people thinking skeptically, I don't think really see how limiting the topics we think skeptically about is really promoting skepticism at all. Skepticism philosophy that can, and in my opinion should, be applied to all aspects of life, and that includes politics.

Furthermore, I don't see any of the topics J. mentioned can possibly be discussed without also discussing politics. Evolution vs. Creationism, for example, is not a scientific discussion. As far as science is concerned, there is no debate. It is a religious movement, that has chosen to intertwine itself into politics. How can we expect to accomplish anything on this debate without discussing the politics of the Religious Right?

As for the specific examples J. cites, I fail to see how gun control does not relate to skepticism. Here's a quote from one of the emails to which J. objected:

Of the more than 30,000 Americans killed annually by guns, only about 1% are bad guys killed by good guys in self-defense. We lead the world in gun deaths: [cite omitted]

Is it politics? Sure, but it's also a great example of how skeptics discuss issues. And if the current members of the REASON listserv lean more toward liberal politics than conservative, the answer is more conservatives who are willing to enter these debates from a point of view grounded in skepticism and empiricism. Self censorship by limiting topics is not the answer.

This is, of course, only my opinion. As any good skeptic should, I remain open to having my mind changed. But I'm failing to see how this is anything other than a "liberal bias" argument, which if taken to it's logical conclusion would only serve to limit debate about a great many deserving issues.