"Scientific Committee to Evaluate Pseudo-Skeptical Criticism of the Paranormal"
"Scientific Committee to Evaluate, Probe and Correct Organized Pseudo-Skepticism"
Personally though, I strongly lean toward the first one above, for three reasons:
1. It sounds less antagonistic and more neutral, civil and respectable to use "evaluate" rather than "expose".
2. The second one contains too many verbs, three in a row, and doesn't flow as smoothly and cleanly as the first one. In fact, the verbs don't even look really necessary, but as if they were put there only to fill the letters of the acronym. Thus the first one has a smoother and more direct flow, a cleaner "feng shui" so to speak.
3. The second version was designed to take out the word "paranormal" to broaden the scope of SCEPCOP. However, just because there is the word "paranormal" in the acronym doesn't mean we have to stick only to paranormal topics. CSICOP does not only deal with paranormal topics either, for example, they have addressed many non-paranormal alternative topics as well. Thus, an organization does not have to stick religiously to its acronym.
What do you think? Are those good reasons that make sense?Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 31 Aug 2009, 19:16
]]>