|
It is easier to pan than to praise. When I write about how skeptics’ behavior reflects upon skepticism, I am more apt to resort to negative examples, where I can say, “let’s not do that,” than to positive ones, where I can say, “Folks, that is how it should be done.”
Not this time. Today I am here to showcase a positive example.
In my prior Randi.org post, I used a religious debate to illustrate the potential destructiveness of squabbling among skeptics. I admit to having dwelled long on the analogy. I know better. Not getting quickly to the point risks failing to communicate with readers who opt out early.
Such was the case with at least one reader, who posted a comment criticizing me for writing about “…whether we skeptics ought to join in debating whether Mormons are Christians.” Moments later, another commenter came to my defense with a “jab” about the first’s “reading comprehension.”
Alas, I thought, instead of discouraging silly squabbles, I catalyzed one. I am pleased to report, however, that my “alas” was premature.
Resisting any urge to jab back, the first commenter asked straight questions: “What point are you making about reading comprehension, and for what reason? Are you saying I’m mis-reading Cuno’s apology for biting our tongues about the status of Mormonism? How so?”
Rather than re-jab, the second commenter proffered an apology and a straight answer: “Pardon if my little jab was not more informative, it appears that you have not read the above post. The topic of this post is not about skeptics joining in the Mormon/Christian debate, nor is it an ‘apology for biting our tongues about the status of Mormonism.’ Rather, it is a pithy analogy which suggests that skeptics might not be well served as a community by behaving as the self righteous true believers do. A reread may change your perception of the intent of this post.”
Then a most remarkable thing happened. “Oops,” the first commenter replied. “Yes, I didn’t read the thing closely. Sorry.”
It is doubtful that this well-handled exchange will find its way onto the pages of USA Today. And that’s a shame. It was a rare and wonderful instance of handling a disagreement like grown-ups.
Folks, that is how it should be done.
Steve Cuno, a three-time TAM speaker, is founder of the RESPONSE Agency in Salt Lake City. You can read Steve’s blogs by clicking here.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I also don't think that it was Steve's intention to imply that any one way is the best to handle all skeptical situations. You and I have had this debate ourselves on FS. He was simply offering praise for two people who handled themselves like adults.
I don't know if you remember what this place used to be like. It was bad. Pharyngula-shark-tank-type-bad and it took some time to get the ad hominem attacks and general personal insults under control. It's so much better now. People who were afraid to comment or participate before are now leaving comments. I think that was the point Steve was making.