# Meanwhile, back at the ranch... pitting the misuse of "skepticism" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 26, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777 "2007-02-26T21:36:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/41 "2007-02-27T00:16:53Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] I _love_ the branch-off about “homo”. Very informative. Especially the Greek v Latin thing, which hadn’t even occurred to me. Now I wonder how the cited sources (one of which is from Oxford) could have got it so wrong. But shit does happen, even in the most reputable places. [/QUOTE] I don’t think your source was wrong about the construction “homophobia” having an archaic definition which used the latin meaning of _homo_ and refrerred to fear of men. I think it’s just that the resemblance to the modern word is more coincidental than etymological. The _homo_ in homophobia is shorthand for “homosexual.” It’s a sloppy neoligism which really owes more to modern English than to Greek or Latin. I agree we could all use a better word for the kind of bigoted sentiment we all know we’re trying to talk about, but so far (despite attempts like “heterosexist”), “homophobia,” through sheer popular usage, has more or less transcended it’s pseudo-classical etymology enough to become the signifier we need. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/42 "2007-02-27T00:16:55Z")
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer] (not trying to prove anything. it just sounded like a challenge 😃 ) [/QUOTE] Which you failed. 😛 All your examples, except _homicide_ (which **LHoD** already mentioned) use the Greek _homo-_. The challenge is to find more Latin ones. I’ll give you another chance…go! ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/43 "2007-02-27T02:25:37Z")
If we were to go by the 1828 _Webster’s_ dictionary, _Liberal’s_ criticism of the misuse of _skeptic_ (or _sceptic_) would be well founded. But by 1913, _Webster’s_ had added this definition to the philosophical and the theological meanings and listed it as the primary meaning: > [@](#): > > **skeptic** 1. One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. p.1349 [Cite](http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=skeptic&use1913=on) Therefore, sometime between 1828 and 1913, the above definition came into common usage. I would not consider its usage now as “descriptivist.” As a former national forensics competition judge, if I had judged debating, I would have allowed the use of _skeptic_ and _skeptical_ with the above definition without a problem. I would have viewed the use of _skepticism_ and _Skepticism_ more favorably if I could distinguish the meaning from the context naturally. * * * “La tee da, la tee da…” – Annie Hall ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/44 "2007-02-27T02:42:37Z")
I think this puts my rant on the use of “loose” when people mean “lose” to shame. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/45 "2007-02-27T03:00:16Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] If we were to go by the 1828 _Webster’s_ dictionary, _Liberal’s_ criticism of the misuse of _skeptic_ (or _sceptic_) would be well founded. But by 1913, _Webster’s_ had added this definition to the philosophical and the theological meanings and listed it as the primary meaning: [Cite](http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=skeptic&use1913=on) Therefore, sometime between 1828 and 1913, the above definition came into common usage. I would not consider its usage now as “descriptivist.” [/QUOTE] Might that be more an indication that lexicographers changed during that time period, and began reflecting the common usage in dictionaries rather than usage by the educated elite? ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/46 "2007-02-27T03:42:20Z")
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.] Which you failed. 😛 All your examples, except _homicide_ (which **LHoD** already mentioned) use the Greek _homo-_. The challenge is to find more Latin ones. I’ll give you another chance…go! [/QUOTE] D’oh! ::head slapping emote:: I misread his post! Double d’oh! Lessee… um… [looks through dictionary]…um… “homo” the genus … um… homininization… um… Hey! It says here that “homogeneous” is from… oh wait. Never mind: \*Midieval \* Latin. From Greek. …um… here’s one: “Homoousian: a Christian supporting the Council of Nicaea’s Trinitarian definition of Jesus the Son of God as consubstantial with God the Father” Ha! Beat _ **that** _! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/47 "2007-02-27T04:15:43Z")
[tangent] Hey, **Randy** , welcome to the board! Yeh, yeh, a bit late and all that, :smack: but nevertheless, welcome, you crack me up, 😃 and I hope you’ll be coughing up the dough to join when your guestship expires. 🙂 [tangent of tangent] Smiley overuse? Smiley abuse? Death to the Great Smileyizer? Whyever would you say that? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/48 "2007-02-27T04:43:36Z")
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer] …um… here’s one: “Homoousian: a Christian supporting the Council of Nicaea’s Trinitarian definition of Jesus the Son of God as consubstantial with God the Father” Ha! Beat _ **that** _! 😛 [/QUOTE] Homo = same Ousia = substance As in English “con” from Latin _cum_ = with + substance, giving consubstantial (whence Luther’s Platonic Consubstantiation against the RCC’s Aristotelian Transubstantiation) Origin and derivation: Greek ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/49 "2007-02-27T04:47:33Z")
I don’t believe there’s a significant difference between the two terms. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/50 "2007-02-27T04:49:10Z")
Does that make you skeptical or incredulous? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/51 "2007-02-27T04:53:08Z")
I’m incredible. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/52 "2007-02-27T04:53:22Z")
**Liberal** , I apologize for my contributions to the hijacking of your thread. That said, **ETF** , thanks for the kind words. Come fight with me in my GD thread on free will! (My guest-ship runs out on the 1st, and, at best, it’ll be a few weeks before I’ll be able to tithe for membership.) > [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@Randy Seltzer](#): > > > > …um… here’s one: “Homoousian: a Christian supporting the Council of Nicaea’s Trinitarian definition of Jesus the Son of God as consubstantial with God the Father” Ha! Beat that! > > Homo = same > Ousia = substance > As in English “con” from Latin cum = with + substance, giving consubstantial > (whence Luther’s Platonic Consubstantiation against the RCC’s Aristotelian Transubstantiation) > Origin and derivation: Greek Jeez, what are you? My girlfriend? Can’t I be right just \*\*ONCE \*\* when I’m obviously wrong? Fine! The dictionary says it’s from the late Latin _homousianus_, from _homousius_, from, yes, the \*\*Greek \*\* _homoousios_. Jerk. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/53 "2007-02-27T04:56:52Z")
OK. Next time I’ll take the time to go look it up in a dictionary for confirmation so that you have the opportunity to look it up and get back with a correction, first. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/54 "2007-02-27T04:59:21Z")
(And a word of advice: Don’t EVER post “beat that!” on THIS message board–SOMEONE will.) ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/55 "2007-02-27T05:59:04Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] (And a word of advice: Don’t EVER post “beat that!” on THIS message board–SOMEONE will.) [/QUOTE] “Dead horse” Beat that! -D & R- ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/56 "2007-02-27T06:12:09Z")
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer] “Dead horse” Beat that! [/QUOTE] “Penis” Beat that! ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/57 "2007-02-27T06:21:49Z")
Fun facts - classicists (okay, classicists who are purists and do gender studies) HATE the word ‘homosexual’, for exactly the reasons evident in this thread. The prefix ‘homo-’ HAS a Latin meaning, so combining the Greek prefix with the Latin ‘-sexual’ just messes things up. Also, ‘homoousian’ (better known as Nicene Christian) along with it’s cousin, ‘homoiousian’ (Arian Christian) gave rise to a pun - between the two warring groups, there was just an iota of difference. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/58 "2007-02-27T11:56:20Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Note that I aimed my rant very specifically at people who use the term, not in informal settings like that, but in debates. Here. [/QUOTE] Well, I’ll also note that you: a) tentatively excluded most dopers who call themselves skeptics from the rant (“The majority of Dopers who claim to be skeptics probably know what they’re saying, so this rant isn’t directed at them”), and b) Insulted the remainder by suggesting that they “pretend,” that they are " illiterate crank[s]," that they “proudly puff out their chests.” My claim is that, in the setting of debates (which, as **Miller** points out, is not exactly a formal setting), you’ll find the overwhelming majority of folks who use the word “skeptic” use it in the common parlance, exactly the parlance that you insult in your OP. I could be wrong, and perhaps you’ve gathered the evidence of my incorrectness: if you’ve had to ask, over and over, which definition of “skeptical” someone is using, perhaps you’ve received enough answers that you can show me how “the majority of dopers who claim to be skeptics” are using it in the should-be-capitalized sense, not the common sense. Has this actually been your experience? I suspect that the reality is different. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of folks who call themselves skeptical are saying that they are not convinced by the evidence so far offered. If I am corect, then the breakdown in communication is with you, not with them–because I and virtually everyone else understands what they’re saying without having to ask, and it’s you who do not. The solution to the problem is not to forbid them this perfectly fine use of the word, but rather to accept that they probably mean the shouldn’t-be-capitalized version of the word when that’s what they use. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/59 "2007-02-27T12:14:14Z")
[QUOTE=Helen’s Eidolon] Fun facts - classicists (okay, classicists who are purists and do gender studies) HATE the word ‘homosexual’, for exactly the reasons evident in this thread. The prefix ‘homo-’ HAS a Latin meaning, so combining the Greek prefix with the Latin ‘-sexual’ just messes things up. [/QUOTE] What do they think of “television”? ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2007, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/60 "2007-02-27T13:18:52Z")
> [@](#): > > [C. P. Scott](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Prestwich_Scott) (died 1932) > Television? The word is half Greek, half Latin. No good can come of it. parricidal orphanage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777.md?page=4)