Skeptics dont challenge Status Quo Fallacy

[derrida]

that the skeptics dont challenge the status quo is a fallacy
frankly i found this argument quite funny since is a total lie from believers.
so i think we could give examples

3/4 of the newspapers in United States carry an astrology column
48% percent of americans believe in astrology
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/s ... _index.htm

skeptics challenge the status quo by not adhering to the astrology nonsense
do you got any more examples like that or better?

[Arouet]

Not to mention that what the hell is the status quo anyway? I don't think there is any such thing. We live in an ever changing world. Skeptics tend to be pro-science and what leads to more change in our society than science? Skeptics change their minds all the time on various topics? Why? Because we tend to look into things more than non-skeptics, and thus our views become more refined as our knowledge increases.

[derrida]

[RarelyImpressed]

LOL.....you challenge the status quo, but you used an example of astrology in the newspaper? lololol.....ok there buddy you missed your own point.

[OmegaChaos]

Astrology is not Status Quo LOL...Status Quo means establishment science.everything officially accepted etc.And I agree that modern astrology is not really accurate...and that rocks in space can influence your life or your personality,is ofc not true.
There is so much disinformation about it.

And still,those mainstream skeptics have never challenged establishment or mainstream science.

[Arouet]

[derrida]

i think there´s a missunderstanding because i used astrology
but only because that was the first bunk of thing i see at least half of the population believes in

Status quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.[1] To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are. The related phrase status quo ante, literally "the state in which before", means "the state of affairs that existed previously".[2]

i could also have gone with GOD and religion.
im just saying

[Scepcop]

Status quo means official. Sure it may be a generalization. But it is true that Randi and Shermer do not challenge anything official or established. For example, the official version of 9/11 or the JFK Assassination. Or the FDA or CDC. Or the official version of any history. Or Evolution despite its flaws.

[Arouet]

[Jackal]

[Arouet]

Jakal: you are talking about a huge number of people, with all sorts of ideas. You are also not taking into account that many scientists may have seriously contemplated and even investigated or researched areas such as psi or the paranormal and rejected them as likely explanations.

You're also missing my point that science continues, we learn more and more about the universe all the time, our ideas about the universe expand all the time. There is no such thing as status quo when it comes to science. It is changing all the time.

And there are scientists who are studying psi. They are doing experiments, and there is discussion about those experiments. To date, we have little more than possible statistical anomalies. Perhaps one day there will be a breakthrough that mainstream science can't ignore. But that hasn't happened yet.

And it is hardly like people discuss paranormal issues hidden secretly in the closet. There is all sorts of discussion out there. All sorts of hypotheses. All sorts of "unknowns". All sorts of gaps. The history of science has been the filling in of those gaps. The future of science may even be to fill some of those gaps in with psi, or aliens, or whatever. But it must be done on sufficient reliable evidence. Most of what we see out there is speculation, anomaly hunting, and argument from ignorance. I know its makes people feel better to just believe that the only reason mainstream science doesn't accept these things is because they are closed-minded. But that's not very satisfying, is it? It's an easy scapegoat and draws attention away from the evidentiary problems involving the supernatural. It also draws attention away from the fact that we humans are flawed observers. That's what science aims to control for.

[Jackal]

[Arouet]