|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 21:24:14 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
What would you call someone who publishes great UFO skepticism articles, but has clearly bought into climate denialism? |
It's very disappointing. That's for sure. Like Bidlack, I would have to weigh that against what he mostly brings to the table.
Dave:
What would you say if Robert Lancaster turned out to be a Bigfoot hunter, 9/11 Truther and Moon Hoax proponent? |
If Robert Lancaster actually believed that many silly things, he would be out of the club I suppose. I feel that way about Bill Maher. To me, he's not a skeptic just because he's an atheist.
Dave:
Bill Dembski considers himself a critical thinker and skeptic of evolution dogma, does he belong in the skeptical community? |
I don't really care what Bill Dembski considers himself. Based on how we evaluate claims, he is simply a denialist probably due to his adherence to an irrational belief.
The bottom line for me is what they mostly bring to the table. As you know, there are things that I think Randi is wrong about. FMS is a big one. But again, what is that when compared with the clear thinking he has promoted and delivered on? No doubt I have blind spots too. (Of course, I don't know what they are...)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2010 : 22:13:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
What would you call someone who publishes great UFO skepticism articles, but has clearly bought into climate denialism? |
It's very disappointing. That's for sure. Like Bidlack, I would have to weigh that against what he mostly brings to the table. |
But here's the thing: none of the people whose reactions to Robert Schafer's denialist complaints were printed asked for him to be fired from writing for Skeptical Inquirer or otherwise heaved out of the skeptical community. They addressed his claims (sometimes rudely, sometimes not), and basically said, "you can do better."Dave:
What would you say if Robert Lancaster turned out to be a Bigfoot hunter, 9/11 Truther and Moon Hoax proponent? |
If Robert Lancaster actually believed that many silly things, he would be out of the club I suppose. |
But why? Just tell people, "here are the things that are wrong with what Lancaster has to say about these particular subjects, and go look at his excellent work on Sylvia Browne and James Van Praagh."| I feel that way about Bill Maher. To me, he's not a skeptic just because he's an atheist. |
He's barely even an atheist. I don't see that he's given much critical thought to any particular issue he champions, whether it's one we agree with or not.Dave:
Bill Dembski considers himself a critical thinker and skeptic of evolution dogma, does he belong in the skeptical community? |
I don't really care what Bill Dembski considers himself. Based on how we evaluate claims, he is simply a denialist probably due to his adherence to an irrational belief.
The bottom line for me is what they mostly bring to the table. |
Right. There is no "club" to be kicked out of, it's entirely about the marketplace of ideas, and how you present your goods to the world. There is no particular line in the sand that separates "skeptics" from "non-skeptics."
Accommodationism, on the other hand, is all about saying that there need to be exemptions from that standard, largely for alleged short-term political gains. Either the exemptions should be made because we need the "allies" who can't cut it in an open, honest debate, or because their "woo" is supposedly good for us all, in that it has something to add to the discussion (but can't if everyone is criticizing it all the time). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 22:50:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
In the skeptical community, assuming that there is a division of labor and that skeptics cast a wider net that covers more issues than those who mostly advocate for atheism, what does it mean to be an "accommodationist" when it comes to "moderate religion"? |
Well, to me, an accommodationist is a skeptic, atheist, or science promoter who consciously refuses to broach certain religious topics perceived to be held by a significant portion of the public out of fears of a backlash. In other words, somebody who is more interested in catering to public attitudes than maintain a consistent ideological approach.
| I ask that because I have never ever heard Plait lobby for framing, or call out PZ Myers and so on. |
Then who was he calling out at his TAM 8 talk?
| Is he an accommodationist because he allows some theists and deists to also call themselves skeptics? Is that what being an accommodationist means? |
Depends. Is he saying that there's no conflict between theism and skepticism? Because that's what I object to.
| Do I think Bidlack has a huge blind spot? Sure I do. But I also see that he was one of the people who has caused whole governments to stop buying a dowsing device used to find hidden explosives. He saved lives. That's more than most of us do. |
I agree. So Bidlack was wrong about something, and that doesn't mean everything he ever did was bad, just that he had a blind spot and it's perfectly legitimate to point that out. (See Should skeptic organizations be atheist organizations?
If you can find where Plait has said that religion shouldn't be criticized, I'd like to know about it. Sending me off to prove to you that he isn't an accommodationist, when you said he is one is just wrong. And you know it.
|
Ok, first of all, I was characterizing Phil based on something he said that was already posted in this thread. You challenged me on it, so I assumed you were defending Phil based on a deeper understanding of his position.
One big example I can remember of Phil acting like an accommodationist was his call for skeptics to be more timid and lay off the pope during the ongoing clerical abuse scandal due to fears of a backlash. His basic argument that the abuse scandal wasn't a matter for proper skeptics to involve themselves with since rape doesn't have anything to do with skepticism and harsh criticism could alienate Catholics.
PZ responds here: As long as I'm criticizing my allies…
| I have often called for more civility on this forum. Does that make me an accommodationist too? |
No, that makes you a tone troll. 
See, I'm getting to the place, as Dave noted, where I think too many people have become crazy sensitive. I'm starting to honestly believe that the most interesting thing about the "tone" debate is that we are even having it.
|
I was like that at the beginning too. I thought it was much ado about nothing and assumed any differences could be easily rectified. I tried to engage in reasonable discussions on the subject both at Mooney's blog and at Panda's Thumb. But the accommodationists have no interest in compromise. They need to create villains out of the Dawkins and PZs of world in order to make them seem reasonable by comparison. Their entire strategy amounts to throwing vocal atheists under the bus in order to win friends (and converts). Sorry, but I think that's a shitty strategy on top of being a shitty thing to do to one's "allies."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/20/2010 22:55:11 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 23:06:06 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Look, I obviously don't follow the blogs or forums or sites or books or articles of the people that you say are trying to drum people out of the skeptical community, because I've never actually read or heard anyone say anything like that. The antiaccommodationists I read simply say that accommodationism is stupid, dishonest and/or condescending. They are having a debate and criticizing the flaws of those that are (mostly) on the same side (atheist and/or pro-science and/or pro-skepticism), not making threats to kick someone out of the club. Anyone who does so seems to be missing the point. |
The only people I have ever heard saying that accommodationists are going to be kicked out of the club are accommodationists.
Personally I do not see any conflict with (for example) praising Bidlack and sharply criticizing some of his specific beliefs. I certainly don't want him kicked out of the club. But I don't under any circumstances have to give him a pass on his religious beliefs.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 01:05:33 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
One big example I can remember of Phil acting like an accommodationist was his call for skeptics to be more timid and lay off the pope during the ongoing clerical abuse scandal due to fears of a backlash. His basic argument that the abuse scandal wasn't a matter for proper skeptics to involve themselves with since rape doesn't have anything to do with skepticism and harsh criticism could alienate Catholics. |
Ah. You found one. Okay. Here's what I think about that one. I also argued at the time that this was a criminal issue and not a skeptical issue. I still think that unless the pope claimed that god told him to excuse child molestation, and cover it up as well, it's a criminal issue and not a skeptical issue. But I don't agree with Plait that we should not make our outrage known. I think PZ was correct in pointing out that skeptics have as much right to be as outraged as anyone, and that the behavior was as fair a game as any institution would be that declares itself to be, in his words; "exempt from the common rules that regulate human conduct in our culture, and even if we are overwhelmed by the opposition, we must at the very least speak out against the abuse of power…and that includes the privileges that religion has demanded for itself."
So yeah. I suppose that was Plait demanding that all skeptics should take a diplomatic approach so as to not further antagonize the already embarrassed Catholics. I don't agree with him on that.
Humbert:
They need to create villains out of the Dawkins and PZs of world in order to make them seem reasonable by comparison. Their entire strategy amounts to throwing vocal atheists under the bus in order to win friends (and converts). |
Not everyone who has decided to become concerned about "tone" wants to throw Dawkins and Myers under the bus. Maybe the accommodationists do. But look. I don't know how better to approach this other than to say that Plait's comments at TAM8 were very well received by many skeptics, (certainly not all of them) even as pretty much everyone there was waiting with high hopes and anticipation for the keynote address by Dawkins himself. Confusing, no? Plait's talk seemed reasonable to me, even though I had questions for him. (The Overton Window.) And yet, the person I wanted to see the most was Richard Dawkins. Everyone there, it seemed to me, wanted to get close to him.
Upon reflection, I doubt that the "tone" talk was necessary or even worth mentioning, because I think there is value in both the "warrior" and the "diplomat" approach, and in any case, I doubt that anyone will now change their style because of Plait's talk. I think that many skeptics, like me, were drawn in because of a perception that "tone" was becoming a problem when nothing has changed. Ultimately, even though I too have complained about it, Dave is right that the skeptical community isn't really calling for anyone's head on a platter, other than the usual and appropriate suspects like Sylvia Browne.
There is a super sensitivity now about being called or thought of as an "accommodationist" simply because some peoples approach happens to be that of a diplomate. It's like a weird paranoia has seized much of the skeptical community. A community that for the most part reveres people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and PZ Myers while at the same time worries that we are all in danger of becoming too strident. Too combative for any civilized persons pallet. But it's delusional thinking. Nothing much has changed, I think, accept that the skeptical community has become seriously conflicted for no particular reason.
Hey! I was there! I also had dinner with someone from the Dawkins Foundation who thought Plait's speech was great. This is the same person who invited me to dine with PZ Myers, which I did at TAM6. Now someone needs to tell me what's going on if I haven't already figured it out.
And that is why I keep saying that the "tone" issue is starting to feel like a bunch of malarky to me. Yes, Mooney will still attack Myers (what the fuck else is new?) and the beat goes on...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 01:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
Then who was he calling out at his TAM 8 talk? |
As I understand it, he was mostly objecting to posts on the JREF forum. When I talked to him, he told me that Myers approach has been of value, which I have already mentioned.
Humbert:
Depends. Is he saying that there's no conflict between theism and skepticism? Because that's what I object to. |
Not that I can discern. I listened to an interview he did at TAM8 today where he told of a 16 year old creationist who was in a class he visited what science says on several questions she had for him. While polite about it, he did not leave room for doubt about what he thought on matters of science.
Hard to keep up with edits... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 11:11:59 [Permalink]
|
I'm not grokking Derek on Facebook:
July 10:| Derek Colanduno #tam8 Some of the reaction to @badastronomer proves his point 100% |
July 19:Derek Colanduno For those of you who didn't make it and didn't get to hear and see the now infamous "Don't Be A Dick" speech. Here is a good summary of it. It was actually the highlight of the event for me. Phil Plait was dead on the nose in his lecture.
[Link to Josh Rosenau post]
| Daniel Loxton It was the highlight of the event for me as well. |
| Barbara A. Drescher It was just the start for me, but definitely hit the mark. It's amazing how many people thought he was talking to and about them. Must mean something... hmmm.... what could that be? |
| Derek Colanduno @Barbara Worst part is that, at least 60% of the people who thought it was about them, they just went about proving Phil correct. :) |
| Barbara A. Drescher True, true. The people who appreciated it were not the ones who needed it the most. And about half of the people who praised Phil, Carol Tavris, Massimo, and Bruce Hood's talks proved that they didn't have a clue what any of it was about. *sigh* :) |
| Brad Reznick Hurray for civility! Way to go Phil! |
| Jim Lippard P.Z. Myers' latest response to Phil's talk contains the statement that "there isn't anyone who fits that description in the skeptical movement." |
| Brad Reznick I've a couple of people to introduce to P.Z. |
| Rich Hammett Jim: Does he mean there's no dicks in the skeptical movement, or that there's no "not dicks" in the movement? |
| Derek Colanduno @Rich I was going to ask the same question. |
| Barbara A. Drescher Jim, was this in a blog post or a tweet? I haven't searched yet, but it seems to me that he was going to respond almost entirely on Twitter... |
| Rich Hammett "He didn't mention me at all. He opened up against a strawman New Dick, which is unfortunate, because there isn't anyone who fits that description in the skeptical movement. " |
| Rich Hammett I'm gonna have to watch Phil's talk Real Close Now, cuz I didn't get the impression he was talking generically about punching granny in the face. I suspect PZ has created a straw man, IOW. |
Rich Hammett Based on this summary: http://podblack.com/2010/07/the-bad-astronomers-speech-at-tam8/
I've gotta say that PZ is fulla crap. Although the first string (PZ, etc) only do this rarely...In fact, I've gotta stop here and say PZ does it bizarrely, on the rare occasions he does it. He gets nasty about things when I happen to know he is completely wrong about what he's saying. I think these times are even a step worse than what Phil was talking about.
But as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted me, the first string New Atheists do this rarely (PZ) or never (most of the rest by my observations). The second string and lower people, however, including a large mass of Pharyngulites and Skepchick commenters, do this nearly constantly. |
| Christopher Derick Varn I have to say, the general Dickishness of the New Atheists is vastly overstated, but I have seen some things said by PZ commenters that turn my stomach. He either have a vastly different definition of dickishness than most, or he's pulling at straws. |
| Barbara A. Drescher Thanks, Jim. You're saving me the need to search through the dozens of posts/day. Nice catchy title, of course... |
| Barbara A. Drescher Rich, I talked to Phil briefly about it and I am quite sure that the initial impression that most of us had - that he was speaking to all of us and perhaps also himself - is pretty accurate. |
Blake Smith I stared at my keyboard for the longest time today. PZ went on "strike" for PepsiGate - but at the same time put out that post Jim Lippard linked to. In the discussion, under that same note, readers posted a barrage of anti-accommodationist screeds full of a colorful bouquet of NSFW language.
I can only conclude from that ironic discontinuity that either PZ hasn't read the notes under his own posts, or that he has an entirely different definition of "being a dick" than I do.
Probably the latter?
Example of something I'd consider dickish behavior:
Person1) I think there may be some cultural value to religion that skeptics and atheists should consider before automatically berating believers en masse.
Person2) Fuck that, accommodationist! Fuck fuck fuckity fuck. Damn fucking fuckety fuck. Fucking fuck. Fuck.
(I exaggerate a bit.) In this scenario I'd say Person2 was being a dick. And there are a LOT of people who act like that in discussion boards all over the Internet. Meanwhile people with genuine inquisitiveness come to find out more about a topic and run into these foaming-at-the-mouth angry reactionaries. I think this kind of thing is (a) dickish and (b) limits the functional persuasiveness of message boards which might otherwise be helpful friendly communities. |
Barbara A. Drescher Blake, he referred to 3 people:
1) Someone who posted something about not being a dick a couple of months after holding up a particularly mean, insulting, snarky (and, to be honest, WRONG) comment as "The Comment Of the Week".
2) Someone who thought that Randi's treatment of the issues in "Flim Flam" was "dick-like".
and
3) Someone who called Phil's tone during the speech an example of being a dick.
I think that PZ, along with a bunch of other people - many of whom where there - missed the point AND have a very bizarre definition of "dick".
Apparently, one is a dick if one says something you don't like. You yourself are never a dick.
My experiences today in the blogosphere confirm that, btw. |
| Blake Smith That's about right. |
Christopher Derick Varn "Apparently, one is a dick if one says something you don't like. You yourself are never a dick."
That's a given. Seriously though, I said some things that turn my stomach. I hope that I would learn to know when to back off, instead of rationalizing my asininity. |
| Barbara A. Drescher @CDerick: The fact that you care about it means you're not a dick. |
|
I don't get it. I find these reactions puzzling.
But at the link to Podblack Cat's summary, above, there is a link to Epsilon Clue's partial transcript, arguments and discussion of Plait's talk. This is also the summary that Josh Rosenau quotes from liberally.
My position is just like that expressed in RBH's first comment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 11:44:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't get it. I find these reactions puzzling. |
Me too. All I got from that is that PZ and the commenters at Pharyngula sometimes use foul language.
For example, Blake Smith wrote: In the discussion, under that same note, readers posted a barrage of anti-accommodationist screeds full of a colorful bouquet of NSFW language.
I can only conclude from that ironic discontinuity that either PZ hasn't read the notes under his own posts, or that he has an entirely different definition of "being a dick" than I do.
Probably the latter? |
Probably. I don't see how "NSFW language" immediately qualifies as "dickish behavior." Doesn't content matter?
Example of something I'd consider dickish behavior:
Person1) I think there may be some cultural value to religion that skeptics and atheists should consider before automatically berating believers en masse. |
This insultingly assumes that "dickish" skeptics and atheists haven't considered the cultural value of religion. PZ and other new atheists say all the time that religious communities and charities can do good--it's just that society could separate out all the supernatural components without losing any of that. Are people like Blake Smith incapable of understanding this simple point? He accuses the new atheists of being reactionaries and failing to understand the nuance and complexities of the case for theism--but only by being a reactionary and failing to understand the nuance and complexities of the existing new atheist counter-arguments.
And of course he conflates strong criticism of belief with "berating believers en masse." Sorry, but pointing out the irrationality of beliefs is not the same thing as berating believers, even if believers decide to take the criticism personally.
Person2) Fuck that, accommodationist! Fuck fuck fuckity fuck. Damn fucking fuckety fuck. Fucking fuck. Fuck.
(I exaggerate a bit.) In this scenario I'd say Person2 was being a dick. And there are a LOT of people who act like that in discussion boards all over the Internet. Meanwhile people with genuine inquisitiveness come to find out more about a topic and run into these foaming-at-the-mouth angry reactionaries. |
I guess I just have a totally different threshold to bad words than Blake Smith. The commenters at Pharyngula are a collection of some of the most intelligent, articulate, and insightful individuals I've seen on the internet. Yet all Blake sees when he reads them is curse words. If his own prudishness interferes with his ability to read for comprehension, I would say that's his problem.
And I really don't understand Derek Colanduno's comment at all. | @Barbara Worst part is that, at least 60% of the people who thought it was about them, they just went about proving Phil correct. :) |
Huh? The "tone" argument has been going on for quite some time now, and PZ and the commenters are Pharyngula have already been tarred with the "uncivil" brush. It's a sensitive issue that almost everyone is conscious of. So how does assuming Phil has specific individuals in mind "prove Phil's point?" If anyone speaks up to defend themselves they must self-identify as dicks? More likely they've just gotten sick of being called dicks behind their backs. I know Derek is a SFN member. Perhaps he'd like to come here and better explain himself.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/21/2010 11:48:18 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 11:48:31 [Permalink]
|
| originally posted by Dave W. I don't get it. I find these reactions puzzling. |
That is because debating this subject is futile. Notice how a lot of people give their opinions but they don't mean jack shit. Thats all this argument is ever going to get.....a lot of energy spent arguing for a vague concept that has no answer.
This subject not only applies to atheism but to any subject ever thought about and really just life in general.
Wouldn't it be great if all people just walked around with a nice big happy smile all day being nice to everyone. Ain't gonna happen with atheism or anything else in the world... ever.
eta: All this argument is ever going to accomplish is bad feelings between people because everyone will be nitpicking each other.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
| Edited by - Ebone4rock on 07/21/2010 11:54:15 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 14:56:43 [Permalink]
|
I think the comments are an example of what I have been saying. I happen to know Barbara Drescher reserves the right to tear someone a new one, if that's where the conversation goes. But see, there is a kind of hysteria going on. It's gotten so muddled that it really doesn't make any sense. That's what I'm getting anyhow.
I would caution against making the mistake of thinking that this is about accommodationists and new atheism. It really is about tone in general. I think it's a waste of time. But there are obviously those who want to hash it out.
Or maybe I'm not over it. I'm just watching it from a different point of view now. I yanked myself out of the tone debate before falling in deeper. And because I fell for it (though I don't think anyone was trying to hoodwink me) I can understand the turns it took that caused me to believe the debate was worth having. (Could it be that I feel a Kil Report coming on?)
Some of the people that Dave has quoted I deeply respect. What can I say? Jim Lippard and Daniel Loxton as well as Barbara Drescher are all great skeptics.
Edited to add:
By the way. Barbara Drescher posted this:
http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2010/07/16/some-more-on-not-being-a-dick/
This is closer to what I believe. Not exactly, but close enough. Play to the lurkers, pretty much.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 14:59:30 [Permalink]
|
I think it's a waste of time. But there are obviously those who want to hash it out.
|
TA DA!!!!
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 16:12:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I think the comments are an example of what I have been saying. I happen to know Barbara Drescher reserves the right to tear someone a new one, if that's where the conversation goes. But see, there is a kind of hysteria going on. It's gotten so muddled that it really doesn't make any sense. That's what I'm getting anyhow.
I would caution against making the mistake of thinking that this is about accommodationists and new atheism. |
See, I would caution against the opposite. I think this is very much about accommodationism. "Tone" is just the red herring. At least I saw it begin that way.
This all goes back to the question "are science and religion compatible?" Anyone who answers "no" to that question has been labeled strident, militant, fundamentalist, etc. regardless of the actual language they employ defending that view. The "tone" debate has morphed out of that, and that's why you get head-scratchers like Drescher* clucking her tongue at incivility even though she's been known to engage in it herself. Because this isn't really about incivility, it's about philosophical consistency conflicting with political expediency. To achieve their aims, the accommodationists have attempted to marginalize the new atheist movement by "framing" themselves as standing on the sane middle ground between the raving religious fundamentalists and the frothing new atheists. The "tone" debate is just an extension of that PR campaign.
In short, the accommodationists, having failed to adequately defend their position through reasoned discourse, have resorted to good old fashioned smear tactics in service of the fallacy of the golden mean. And with no small success, I might add. Many vocal atheists are now finding themselves on the defensive.
*I'm not actually familiar with Drescher and am only going by Kil's comments. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/21/2010 16:29:19 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 18:00:00 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
This all goes back to the question "are science and religion compatible?" |
Sigh...
Yeah, I get that the accommodationists want to be nice. But the question "are science and religion compatible" isn't a part of this debate. And this debate is happening mostly among people who aren't what anyone in their right mind would call an accommodationist. Did you miss the part where I talked about my friend from the Dawkins Foundation who thought that Plaits speech made sense?
Also, the debate started well before Plait weighed in. Months before. For fucks sake, while there might be some similarities, no one is saying "accept woo claims" or "don't be critical of religion." or "science and religion are compatible." Not even Plait is saying that. It's about TONE!!! Not about the subject that's being debated at the time. It's about not calling the people you are debating with "dick-heads" right out of the gate. (I should probably note that I'm not suggesting there are enough people doing that to make this a legitimate debate, even though I have in the recent past. I got sucked in too.)
I don't personally know any skeptic who thinks that science and religion are compatible. No one is arguing for NOMA. NOMA is not popular among most skeptics. And no matter how much the skeptics I do know debate this, I really doubt that they will change their minds about that, no matter how much you want them to so that you can call them accommodationists.
Let me tell you something. The hypersensitivity is coming from all sides now. Am I wrong or are you suggesting that fools like Chris Mooney are now successfully heading a conspiracy to spread accommodationism? Okay then. Please. Tell me exactly who they are smearing and putting on the defensive aside from their usual targets? Do you have any evidence for that?
And before you make the claim that Phil Plait thinks that science and religion are compatible, check this link:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/25/turtles-all-the-way-down/
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 18:38:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Also, the debate started well before Plait weighed in. Months before. |
Yeah, Plait is late to the debate, but it seems that according to the reactions, what he said was still current, important and very much needed (except that the ones who "need it most" weren't apparently listening). Plait is the newest "tone ambassador." I don't think he'll let all the raves go to his head, though (which is what I suspect happened to Mooney), because he was already a celebrity before hitting this popular note.| For fucks sake, while there might be some similarities, no one is saying "accept woo claims" or "don't be critical of religion." or "science and religion are compatible." |
The NCSE is saying exactly that. It's central to their "Faith Project" strategy. Here's Josh Rosenau (who works for the NCSE):Why are they [the "New Atheists"] "blamed and shamed"? Maybe those of us who work on evolution education day in and day out have seen how the "evolution = atheism" red herring acts as a sticking point in every conversation with potential allies. Sometimes we can get around it, and sometimes we get a quote by some New Atheist thrown back at us. In almost every effort, the first necessary step to blocking creationist efforts or improving science education has to be defusing that same red herring, and New Atheism's whole argument is that this experience is useless and erroneous and somehow like enabling Nazis to conquer Europe. Hard to fathom why that might generate some ill will. Of course, he's quite wrong about what "New Atheism's whole argument" is, but that's a different topic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 18:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Gotcha Dave. But I said "I don't personally know any skeptic who..."
I am aware of the faith project. Though I haven't checked lately to see if that's still up on the NCSE site. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The ‘tone’ debate
