|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2010 : 08:48:31 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to think that in the 17 years of my claiming a faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior that I have learned at least a few things when discussing my faith. One thing I have learned is that nothing is accomplished by a Christian calling an Atheist a retard, a fool, or stupid for his beliefs. And visa versa. Throughout human history we have seen billions of people live and die who claim to be atheists as well as billions who have claimed a faith in Jesus Christ. I certainly do not believe that of the billions of atheists who have come and gone that all are retards, fools or stupid. Certainly we have seen some very intelligent and productive people come and go who professed to be atheist. The same can be said for the Christian as well. Certainly we have seen a share of atheist who seem like they are retarded, foolish or stupid but, we have seen believers who fall into that category as well. And I don't think very many atheist push their views just to be a-holes, I believe the vast majority really believe the view they are pushing. Same with the believers.
I am not saying at all that I am innocent of such behavior only that it has been my finding that most atheist-believer conversations that end up in the name calling phase, at the end of the day, end up being just a big waste of time. It has also been my personal observation that most atheist-believer debates that take place on a forum usually degenerate to that level eventually, while one on one conversations are usually much more productive as many times in a public forum people like to put on a show for the others or have a hard time opening up honestly in front of others. It usually just ends up being a lot of fluff and not much substance. It has been my discovery that most meaningful conversations I have had with unbelievers was a live personal conversation. My wife and I have had numerous conversations with coworkers, relatives, friends and neighbors about religion where the conversation was initiated by unbelieving coworkers, relatives, friends and neighbors. Our neighbors notice us walking to church every Sunday and they ask us about that, which leads to a great conversation. Or a coworker asks how I can always seem to be so calm and relaxed even when things at work are currently very stressful, or friends ask how we have made our marriage last even when we are such different people personality wise etc... It is those springboards that have lead to most or all of my meaningful conversations with unbelievers. Sometimes they act really interested and sometimes you can tell they are just nodding politely but at the end of the conversation a mutual respect has been established that just does not happen when people sit around and call each other stupid or retarded on a public forum. Just my two cents. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 07/26/2010 09:52:54 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 14:18:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It has also been my personal observation that most atheist-believer debates that take place on a forum usually degenerate to that level eventually |
Which is unfortunate, but what can one do when the theist starts throwing around strawmen and red herrings to feed a whole cavallery contingent?
Just like the shit you pulled when you repeated Ken Ham's lies that the Smithsonian Human Origins exhibition was promoting atheism, when in fact it wasn't. This problem seems systematic when theists starts typing about anything remotely connected to science.
Bill, can you explain why that is so?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2010 : 07:42:43 [Permalink]
|
| For those interested, Phil Plaits Don't be a Dick talk at TAM8 is complete and online. Normally this would be part of the TAM8 CD that will be for sale at the JREF store. But given all the responses this talk elicited from those who agree, don't agree, or are somewhere in the middle, the JREF has made the talk available now. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 04:00:28 [Permalink]
|
| Woo, CTer, Troofer, Xain, Beliver, kook, nutter, idiot, etc. That’s being a dick. Whenever you start insulting people, they don’t respond well and start calling you names back. From that point on, nothing constructive happens. |
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 13:19:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
For those interested, Phil Plaits Don't be a Dick talk at TAM8 is complete and online. Normally this would be part of the TAM8 CD that will be for sale at the JREF store. But given all the responses this talk elicited from those who agree, don't agree, or are somewhere in the middle, the JREF has made the talk available now. |
Jerry Coyne gives Plait a mild evisceration (Richard Dawkins hisownself seems to agree at comment #29). The main complaint is that Plait, like Chris Mooney, simply refuses to buttress his accusations and proposed solution with anything like evidence. |
- 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 - 08/27/2010 : 21:03:00 [Permalink]
|
Daniel Loxton weighs in. (Actually, he's been weighing in for a while now, but here he lays his perspective out.) Read the responses. PZ Myers and Daniel sort of go at it. One thing I like about comments here is they are fairly balanced in that it isn't all PZ's crowd or Loxton's crowd. Of course, there is overlap...
THE WAR OVER “NICE” |
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 - 08/27/2010 : 23:36:06 [Permalink]
|
A partial fisking of Loxton.
It seems to me that he's got both of his main points wrong. But first, his "Talking Past Each Other" section includes this gem:In general, everyone actually agrees that passion, anger, comedy, and ridicule can be useful in the right context, when used carefully and well. But apparently, he's lying to himself because he later says that cruelty is always morally wrong, and what else could ridicule be?
But to his main points. One, "that civility tends to help skeptical communication." The "effectiveness" argument. Loxton misses the findings of his first cited article, "Initiating and reciprocating verbal aggression: Effects on credibility and credited valid arguments." It says that an audience will find the target of verbal aggression more credible and as having "more valid arguments" if he/she reciprocates the level of aggression. PZ's (and others') major shtick these days is pointing out when non-atheists are being complete dicks to atheists, so this study says that reciprocating the dickishness is the right thing to do to win the debate in the public eye. Loxton's parenthetical claim about the study, "Audiences expect targets of verbal aggression to stand up for themselves, but nonetheless penalize targets who retaliate by matching the initiator’s level of aggressiveness," is directly contradicted by the study's abstract (the rest of the piece is behind a paywall).
The second study Loxton cites, "Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom," is largely irrelevant because we're not talking about instructors in a college classroom for the most part, but people on blogs.
Loxton's third citation, "A Ridiculous Essay on Rational Outreach," is just a blog post itself. While it references many (presumably) peer-reviewed articles, it isn't one and I don't have the time or funds to go read everything. What stands out is in the conclusion, anyway, which is that the author thinks that the only possible impediment to communicating skepticism is being rude. The author doesn't appear to even consider the possibility that being an intellectual doormat might harm "the cause," too. Loxton claims that the post is "even-handed," but without considering the fact that the vast majority of outreach has been nothing but respectful for the last umpty-ump decades and has resulted in no deep decline in irrationality, I can't say that he's right.
Loxton's other point is moral. He utterly fails at this, saying first that morality cannot be argued on a skeptical basis but then he goes ahead and does so anyway. His argument begins tremendously badly, by pointing out D.J. Grothe's statements that "we get riled up" when quacks perpetrate frauds, but Loxton says, "The moral argument for not being a dick is as simple as that." What? What the hell does that even mean, in context? We should be dicks because we're pissed off? It makes little sense.
Next, Loxton claims he could shorten his argument by a "couple thousand words" by saying "mean people suck" or "be excellent to each other." Yes, he's claiming that a bumper sticker and the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (respectively) are self-evident moral arguments against being a dick. Bill and fucking Ted. Holy fucking cow. Is this how low we've gone? That an argument about how we should approach skepticism and public outreach can be summed up with a feel-good quote from a Hollywood movie in which the protagonists not only cheat Death (with a capital D) but trvale through time, meet God and a magically skilled ET? That's it? Really?! There aren't enough desks in the world for me to pound my head against at how full of stupid that paragraph is.
But Loxton isn't finished. The next paragraph starts:Nonetheless, it is argued on humanist principle that "Every person needs to be accorded a modicum of respect and dignity" — even online. I'll give Loxton a clue, here: "modicum" means "very small amount." Every person who goes for the throat, verbally, but still explains why the target of their wrath is being an idiot is giving them a "modicum of respect and dignity" by showing that they care enough take the time to explain. The "tone" debate isn't about whether or not people should be wholly dismissive of other people's ideas, which would be behavior utterly lacking in respect, but instead it's about whether addressing those ideas should or should not include ridicule. If the ideas are addressed at all, a modicum of respect has been given. Loxton doesn't bother with that idea, though, failing to give it any respect whatsoever.
He continues:If I may side with the quaint schoolmarmish view, I agree: it is a moral wrong to intentionally elect to treat people badly. Well, tough. Loxton has already asserted that morality cannot be argued on skeptical grounds, so he's simply making the further blanket assertion that being mean is wrong. He's trying to dress it up as quaint, but really it's just hypocritical. Loxton then reiterates his statement's supposed self-evidential nature:There’s really no way around this: it may sometimes be necessary to say things people don’t want to hear, but, in itself, cruelty is morally bad. This is such a fundamental, self-evident moral truth that I’m really lost as soon as anyone disputes it. I'm at a loss at how someone who says that this truth can't be discerned via skepticism can make such statements at all. Especially when Loxton follows it up by criticizing Ashley Miller's assertion that she enjoys dickishness for being as assertion. Loxton is engaging in nothing but massive hypocrisy, here. Of course he doesn't "really have a reply for that," because if he tried, he'd find that he's contradicting himself. And he's not finished doing so! The very next sentence begins, "Some cede the basic moral argument for kindness and respect," but he's already done so himself, in that he's stated (in no uncertain terms) that there is no such argument.
In summary, Loxton has done nothing in these paragraphs but try to suggest that a humanist morality is correct even though he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no argument for that position that could withstand skeptical scrutiny, since he says so himself.
Finally, he has a section titled "Ethics." It starts extraordinarily badly for a self-proclaimed skeptic:Even if you don’t buy the moral argument, the ethics of scientific discourse imply that ad hominem fallacies are inappropriate. There are two reasons this is a tremendously bad statement. One may be just an editing problem, as he should know better than to equate simple insults with "ad hominem fallacies." The other is more problematic, in that in general, ethics are what we expect of ourselves, while morals are how we expect other people to behave, and so the terms are largely synonymous when speaking of populations. Loxton really ought to have thought that out more, since a person who doesn't "buy the moral argument" is rather unlikely to buy his ethical argument, either. Loxton says,The ethical norms of the scientific enterprise ask us to be honest, to assume good faith, to give heterodox ideas a chance, engage in collegial exchanges of opposing opinion, publish under our own names, make data available to our critics, and so on. None of that is based upon moral goodness, but on the pragmatic recognition that science functions best when the greatest number of practitioners adopt a shared code of conduct (and a shared rejection of scientific misconduct). None of that may be based upon Loxton's morality, but as a pragmatist, it certainly is a moral goodness in my mind. In other words, we once again see Loxton simply asserting that his moral compass is the only one pointing in the "correct" direction.
In still other words, to anyone who doesn't share Loxton's morality, he's being a dick. |
- 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 - 08/28/2010 : 09:34:52 [Permalink]
|
Dave;
The author doesn't appear to even consider the possibility that being an intellectual doormat might harm "the cause," too. Loxton claims that the post is "even-handed," but without considering the fact that the vast majority of outreach has been nothing but respectful for the last umpty-ump decades and has resulted in no deep decline in irrationality, I can't say that he's right. |
Who's being an intellectual doormat? Plait, Loxton, Dunning, just about every leading skeptic? Was Carl Sagon an intellectual doormat?
Every time you bring up the doormat thing, I cringe. I think the war for reason will be ongoing and not without a good share of victories. I am less optimistic that this war will ever be able to claim total victory no matter what approach is taken. We must settle for winning battles. That's exactly why skeptics are needed. We are the first line of defense against false and often dangerous claims. And I strongly doubt that there will come a time when we aren't needed to push back against ridiculous claims no matter what method of pushing back is chosen.
Here's the thing. I'm kinda sorry that those who feel that tone is an issue do not simply proceed the way they want to. They are comfortable with their personal style and for the most part, so am I. Take away the dick issue and it's hard to fault those "nice" people who have greatly advanced skeptical thinking from the small group of fellows from Amherst, to the movement that it is today.
For example Phil Plait is about to reach millions by way of a television show that premiers on Sunday. Loxton's Evolution book is being picked up by schools. Those "accommodationists" at the NCSE have thwarted almost every attempt at bringing creationism into the classroom, and of course, there was Sagan. His prose probably introduced more of us who are now activist skeptics to skepticism than even Randi has. And I have little doubt that he would not have changed his personal style from one of niceness to using ridicule to advance his ideas if he were still among us. It might have been interesting to get his take on this debate. Oh well...
My point isn't that perhaps they are wrong to attack others personal style, but that these people are not doormats in terms of accomplishing bringing skepticism to a community that continues to grow in numbers and influence. And unless you are actually convinced that things would have moved along faster with the use of more aggressive tactics, (and there is no evidence to support that assertion either) calling them "intellectual doormats," or thinking of yourself as a doormat if you take an assertive and yet diplomatic approach (those two things are not mutually exclusive) to convincing the public that skepticism is a good thing does not make you a doormat. It's just a matter of style. The "doormat" analogy is, in my view, as hyperbolic as "don't be a dick" is.
I found this part of an exchange between PZ and Loxton interesting.
Myers:
We aren’t running for office. We aren’t trying to appeal to the largest percentage of the population... |
Loxton:
But this is exactly it: many of us are trying to appeal to the largest percentage of the population — appealing to them, for example, to vaccinate their children or to support evolution education. |
It seems that Myers and Loxton do not share the same goals. Okay then...
But lets see if Myers is offered a prime time show that at least in part deals with skepticism that isn't on a pay channel. While Plait may have been off base in his "Dick" talk, his usually diplomatic style, (and we know that's nothing new for Plait) is paying off.
(By the way, I think Dawkins in his critique of Plaits talk took a cheap shot when he accused Plait of having an "accommodationist heart." That's bullshit, and I just didn't have the time to mention it earlier.)
Personally, and I have said this before, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Myers and those who support his approach will not stop doing what they think is best, and neither will Plait, Loxton, Dunning, Dreshcer, Anderson, Novella, DJ Grothe and, dare I say it, most of the leaders in the skeptical community. Not that a winner can be chosen by their popularity in the movement. I'm not making that argument. What I can say is that for many of us, civility is our preferred MO.
Edited to add: I am not saying that civility isn't the preferred MO for the most part, all around. Which is why I think this may be a tempest in a teapot.
Speaking for myself, how I treat another in a debate is entirely situational. And I think that goes for most of us which is why I think the tone debate is a distraction that I would be happy to see just go away...
|
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 - 08/28/2010 : 11:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Who's being an intellectual doormat? Plait, Loxton, Dunning, just about every leading skeptic? Was Carl Sagon an intellectual doormat? |
On a re-read, 'doormat' was the wrong term. Consider it retracted. However, it doesn't really change the small point I was making at that time.| Speaking for myself, how I treat another in a debate it's entirely situational. And I think that goes for most of us which is why I think the tone debate is a distraction that I would be happy to see just go away... |
Well, it seems to me that it's the Loxtons and Plaits and Mooneys which need to hear that, from folks like yourself. In every case that I can think of, these "tone skirmishes" begin when one of the "nice guys" takes aim at the "bad guys" in some public place. They must know that the people they're saying are too aggressive will reply; that they're poking a hornet's nest; that there's going to be even more bad language and "ad hominem" attacks - the very things they're claiming there's too much of already. If a bad tone is bad for "the cause," then knowingly instigating more bad tone must be worse for "the cause" and the "tone critics" are acting contrary to their goals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2010 : 12:14:27 [Permalink]
|
| I don't want to look like a suck-up, but Dave's massive post is "SFN featured article"-material. Especially in the lack of other substantive contributions to the Article-archive. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/28/2010 13:01:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2010 : 20:59:53 [Permalink]
|
I've been informed by Daniel Loxton himself that the first study had a badly-worded abstract. The one which said reciprocal aggression was rewarded. I should have known better to place any trust in it. I was wrong to do so, and apologize to Mr. Loxton for that mistake.
However, Mr. Loxton says that what the article does say is that in a debate setting, answering "high aggression" with "low aggression" gives one a credibility boost with the audience. That's still not evidence for not being a dick, but is instead evidence for being less of a dick than one's opponents. Depending on one's point-of-view, it could be said that that's exactly what PZ and the rest of those who generally get called dicks are, in fact, doing. When someone, for example, paints all non-believers as hedonistic, amoral nihilists who can't possibly have a rational reason for not selling their own children into slavery, calling that particular person all sorts of names is, in my mind, a lot less aggressively dickish.
Mr. Loxton also made at least a couple changes in his post in response to my criticisms, including (he pointed out) changing the sentence which starts, "Some cede the basic moral argument for kindness and respect..." so that it reads "accept" instead of "cede," but that doesn't change my criticism of his "moral argument" at all: he first says there is no skeptically grounded argument to be made about morality, but then he tries to make one anyway.
He's also removed entirely the sentence after his D.J. Grothe quote, the sentence which read, "The moral argument for not being a dick is as simple as that." It didn't make any sense, and Mr. Loxton's post is better for its absence.
I've seen another criticism of my comments, from someone else, but what I've seen may have just been a fragment of a bigger criticism, and it may not have even been intended for my eyes, so I won't respond to it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 12:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Dave W, "Modicum" means "a moderate or very small amount".
It saddens me that you indicate that you give people you don't know only very little respect and dignity.
In my opinion, it'd be better if more people could view others from a default state of equality,
|
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 14:13:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Badger
Dave W, "Modicum" means "a moderate or very small amount". |
"Modicum" is synonymous with words like iota, jot or tittle. Where does the "moderate" meaning come from?| It saddens me that you indicate that you give people you don't know only very little respect and dignity. |
I don't see where I've indicated that at all.| In my opinion, it'd be better if more people could view others from a default state of equality, |
I do. Everyone has an equal opportunity to earn (or lose) my respect. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 14:40:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W asked:
| "Modicum" is synonymous with words like iota, jot or tittle. Where does the "moderate" meaning come from? |
From the Merriam-Webster definition of the word. The latin root means moderate or within bounds.
It usually means "a moderate or small amount".
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 15:01:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
From the Merriam-Webster definition of the word. The latin root means moderate or within bounds.
It usually means "a moderate or small amount". |
Well, the Merriam-Webster Free Online Dictionary has "modicum" as being synonymous with "iota," which was (and still is) my understanding of the word. None of the listed synonyms indicate "moderate" as a possible meaning.
The roots of a word don't track usage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The ‘tone’ debate
