Should we change our name: 'ME/CFS Skeptic'?

Should we change our name: 'ME/CFS Skeptic'?

  • Change the name

    Votes: 47 67.1%

  • Keep the name

    Votes: 23 32.9%
  • Total voters
    70
ME/CFS Skeptic said:
A blog name without referring to ME/CFS (who knows perhaps the name for our illness will change in the next decade?) is also something we're considering. Something like 'Science matters' or 'Science unravelled' but that may perhaps be too broad.
Click to expand...

Maybe something like what the podcast post-exertional mayonnaise did? Post exertional then a word about science that rhymes with malaise.

I can't think of a word, but something like

Post exertional x-rays
Post exertional tuesdays
Post exertional protease

Edit: Maybe it doesnt even have to rhyme. "Post exertional" isn't common to use for much other than ME/CFS, I think.

Post exertional insights
Post exertional science
Post exertional research
 
Last edited:
I like the word scrutiny. It implies detailed inspection.

Scrutinising ME/CFS?

edit: Oxford dictionary "critical examination or observation".

edit2: "ME/CFS under scrutiny" - because that's what you do.

edit3: ME/CFS Science under scrutiny
 
Last edited:
ME/CFS Skeptic said:
We still prefer a short and neutral name such as ME/CFS Science or ME/CFS Insights (any thoughts on that one?). Something that briefly informs the reader that the blog will give info, analysis and updates on ME/CFS research.
Click to expand...
I earlier commented that ME/CFS Science might sound too much like Science for ME. I said I would consult the committee. There were no objections, and since we think your blogs are excellent, if someone did associate your blog with S4ME that would be a bonus from our point of view.
However, as others have pointed out, ME/CFS Science is too general and not memorable or searchable. I think you need something distinctive.

I do quite like ME/CFS Insights. It suggests something with more depth than simple summaries or articles about ME/CFS, which is good.
 
Trish said:
I earlier commented that ME/CFS Science might sound too much like Science for ME. I said I would consult the committee. There were no objections, and since we think your blogs are excellent, if someone did associate your blog with S4ME that would be a bonus from our point of view.
However, as others have pointed out, ME/CFS Science is too general and not memorable or searchable. I think you need something distinctive.

I do quite like ME/CFS Insights. It suggests something with more depth than simple summaries or articles about ME/CFS, which is good.
Click to expand...
Thanks Trish and the S4ME Committee, much appreciated. We will think about it some more and take our time to decide. Perhaps do a poll with the 4 best options.
 
Needs testing particularly with international as well as Uk audience (this is a term used in courts) but a quick thesaurus on interrogate [the science] came up with words that included

cross-examine (although that would need jogging to make sense with me/cfs first) and I’m hoping would be understood enough as science cross-examine the evidence as legal cross-examine withess

cross-question

investigate

I can’t help but slightly like the meaning overlap with Private Eye (based on my limited knowledge of that publication but particularly admiration for it being the ones who were on top of the Post Office Story - after Computer Weekly)
 
ME/CFS Research Insights

or

ME/CFS Research Skeptic

I like these. I think the word “research” is better than “science” which seems lately to be getting over-used. (Headings that run “Scientists can’t believe. . .” etc have made scientists & science itself seem out of touch IMO).
 
bobbler said:
:)I know - it was more about underlining my limitations/i was inviting input from eg particularly those who commented on the term skeptic interpretation in different countries here as for all I know cross-examine etc could mean something really inappropriate in some countries
Click to expand...
ah ok I had taken it to mean something beyond this discussion here.
 
Bings copilot again
  • ME/CFS Research Review
  • The ME/CFS Scrutinizer
  • In-Depth ME/CFS Insights
  • ME/CFS Analysis Corner
  • Critical ME/CFS Commentary
  • Unraveling ME/CFS Mysteries
  • ME/CFS Research Spotlight
  • The ME/CFS Analyst
  • ME/CFS Inquiry Hub
  • ME/CFS Scrutiny Society
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Utsikt said:
Although «SKEPTICISM implies unwillingness to believe without conclusive evidence». Which is what you do.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestions.

It seems that misuse of the term skeptic has become so common (i.e. as in climate skeptics) that a correct use of the term has become confusing to most people.

We still plan on changing the name but needed some more time to consider the best options. Will probably do a poll on social media with the best 4.
 
ME/CFS Skeptic said:
Should we change our name: 'ME/CFS Skeptic'?
Click to expand...
I don't know about others, but a "skeptic" always makes me pay attention to what he has to say. There are a few people/posts on this forum that made me reassess what I thought was true, and I believe yours was one of them. Science in general, and ME/CFS in particular, can use a healthy dose of skepticism both for and against. I'd say keep it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom