What would you be called then, an incred? Skeptic just sounds better.
Your example actually undercuts your argument. The Dope does not “historically” insist on the proper use of the word theory. If someone posts in a GD thread about politics, “I have a theory that Hillary Clinton is going to ask Barrack Obama to be her running mate,” no one is going to dispute their use of the word “theory.” It’s only when someone misapplies the vernacular definition to someone using the scientific definition (as happens in virtually every evolution thread ever) that the objection arises. We are, as a collection of incredibly brilliant people (plus a few total dipsticks) able to rather quickly discern which meaning of the word is intended based on the context in which the word is being used. I see no reason why this would not apply to the word “skeptic,” especially considering that I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread in which the specific philosophical definitions you provided for the term would be relevant.
You have a commendably deep knowledge of the philosophic disciplines, but your interests in the field are not shared by many people in the general public, or even on this particular message board. The term “skeptic,” like many terms of art, has been widely adopted by the general public in a form not quite identical to the way it is used in its original context. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this process, nor anything inherently defecient in people who find that the popular definition fits their current linguistic needs, and the newer usage does not preclude anyone from using the term with its original meaning. Language is almost infinitly flexible: you can bend it in all sorts of directions without breaking it.
Thanks for the info on “homophobia,” though. I was not aware of that usage. Very interesting!
Homunculus?
So… he was skeptical.
Even in Europe, he was skeptical.
It was sad to see… sad to see. He was a man with a vision. And it was a skeptical vision.
(Sorry - there is precisely one person on this board who will get that, but I couldn’t resist).
That doesn’t mean “my little gay uncle”? Crap, I need to go apologize to Uncle Norman.
Daniel
That’s exactly how I’m looking at it. And I understand the point you’re making that the word has come into common usage, and if I want to understand people, then I need to presume the ordinary meaning in ordinary circumstances. But…
I’m not talking about sitting around sucking beer and chatting while we watch the game on the big screen. If you said, “I’m skeptical that they can win,” I would know you did not mean to say there is no way (like the team winning, for example) your doubts could be eliminated. I wouldn’t bat an eye, and we could go on yelping and screaming at the refs and coaches.
By the same token, I wouldn’t mind in that situation if you said something like, “I have a theory about what they’re going to try on third down.” I wouldn’t jump down your throat about a theory being an empirically tested and falsifiable hypothesis.
Note that I aimed my rant very specifically at people who use the term, not in informal settings like that, but in debates. Here. At the Straight Dope, where ignorance is fought and we don’t let people invoke a “theory” about the prediluvian atmosphere. In a debate, it is not always easy to tell by context whether a person will intend from the get-go to reject all proferred evidence and argument because he is, in fact, skeptical. (The caps “rule” is horribly arbitrary, as the the previous sentence shows, and it isn’t even routinely honored in philosophical writings, except when referencing the school itself.)
It’s the crucial difference between “the evidence you offered is unconvincing” and “the evidence you offered is unimportant”. You might waste several posts presenting evidence only to discover eventually, and to your dismay, that there will be no convincing no matter what.
A doubter.
Well, how 'bout “cellar door”? A lot of people claim that it has the best sound of all.
Sure. Again, the only problem I have is with usage of the term to mean “if you show me enough evidence to convince me, I will believe you.” How else would we know without stopping to ask? What if you corresponded for twenty consecutive posts, and he finally blurts out to you, “I told you I was skeptical, dammit! Why do you keep posting this stuff?” Shouldn’t he have cleared up with you up-front that you would be wasting your time?
No problem. I researched it myself only after seeing a thread in General Questions about it.
That, at least, is a war with merit. The two uses of “skepticism” at least have some connection, some shared ground, but the American usage of “liberal” doesn’t make a lick of sense anywhere.
I must admit I’ve never been aware that skeptic could mean someone who says “I don’t care how much valid evidence you show me, I won’t believe you.” In fact, in threads on the supernatural around here, many people are quick to point out that skeptic means no such thing even when the credulous attempt to use it as such. In such cases, it’s always meant someone who says “I won’t take only your word for it; show me empirical evidence and I’ll believe it.” I would call the former many things, irrational being foremost among them, but not skeptical.
The Straight Dope is a formal setting? Jeez. Maybe I should go put some pants on.
Seriously, though, the SDMB is a generalist board. Your complaint would have more merit on a board that specialized in philosophic debate, but around here, very few people are interested in philosophy above the “beer and pretzels” level, and as such, are unlikely to even be aware of the distinction between the formal and vernacular definitions of the word “skeptic.” Anyone who wants to use the word in its formal sense should be aware of that, and make it clear that they’re not using the term in the common sense. And if you still have doubts, it would be relatively simple to just ask, “Do you mean skeptic in the common sense of the term, or are do you mean it in the Academic or Pyrrohnian sense?” Makes more sense than asking a board with thousands and thousands of members to conform to the vocabulary of the meagre handful of philosophy wonks who also post here.
I’d also argue that “skeptical,” as used in the vernacular, is not a perfect synonym for “incredulous,” but I’m not sure I could articulate the difference I perceive in the two terms. I’ll have to think about that for a little while.
Liberal, you really ought to take up actual physical masturbation, instead of spending so much time on the masturbatory bullshit you spend so much time on here. Everyone would be happier, I’m sure. Is stoical versus the Stoics next on your list? How much negative attention do you need from strangers?
I think Incred Head is the term you’re looking for.
Yes, maybe you should. I mean, we’ve all been polite about it and everything, but it’s time.
from my brain:
homogenous - similar structure
homocide - [a human] killing another human
homonym - word with same sound and spelling
homophone - word with same sound
and from the dictionary:
homocercal - in fish, having a tail fin with two symmetrical lobes
homogamous - having stamens and pistils that mature simultaneously
homolecithal - having a yolk that is evenly distributed throughout
homologate - to approve, especially to confirm officially
Homer - totally gay epic poet
- many more!
(not trying to prove anything. it just sounded like a challenge 
)
Right, but from your list, only “homocide” is from the Latin homo (“man”). The rest are from the Greek homo (“same”).
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.
Just out of curiousity, what has anyone said that differs from the cited sources?
But that means “of or pertaining to periwinkles”! In my vocabulary, anyway, it does.
And based on the principles advocated in this thread, I’m skeptical that you can prove me wrong.
In one sense or the other. 
Sorry, on this one I’m on Liberal’s side. I’m also in a permanent snit about awesome, terrible, icon, discovery, hermetic, gnostic, miniature, ecstasy, passion, doctor, and lecture. All you descriptivists be damned. I’m quite happy here in my 18th century.
I’m actually not exactly joking. Something along these lines has been irking me all week and now I can’t recall what it was. . .