|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 08:52:38 [Permalink]
|
talk about biased interpretation. She publicly accused him of calling her the worst word in the English language twice, and it was only after pressure for proof and a considerable delay that she gave a completely sarcastic and therefore insincere apology.
Wow. Why is everyone rushing to be this woman's knight in shining armour and refusing to admit she can be at fault? Dave has a crush on her too maybe? I think PZ got there first LMAO |
 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2012 : 09:22:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
talk about biased interpretation. She publicly accused him of calling her the worst word in the English language twice, and it was only after pressure for proof and a considerable delay that she gave a completely sarcastic and therefore insincere apology. |
She was correct about the fact that he harassed her, just mistaken about the form the harassment took. She doesn't owe him an apology.
Wow. Why is everyone rushing to be this woman's knight in shining armour and refusing to admit she can be at fault? Dave has a crush on her too maybe? I think PZ got there first LMAO
|
Fuck you. Seriously. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 09:53:17 [Permalink]
|
OFFC:
Wow. Why is everyone rushing to be this woman's knight in shining armour and refusing to admit she can be at fault? Dave has a crush on her too maybe? I think PZ got there first LMAO |
Wow. Did I forget to mention that there are assholes in the Christian community too?
|
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 - 08/17/2012 : 11:19:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
talk about biased interpretation. She publicly accused him of calling her the worst word in the English language twice... |
Talk about a biased interpretation! If you want to talk moral relativism, then tell me which is worse: mistakenly accusing someone of calling you a cunt, or actually calling someone a feminazi?| ...and it was only after pressure for proof and a considerable delay... |
Talk about a biased interpretation! She admitted the mistake the very next day.| ...that she gave a completely sarcastic and therefore insincere apology. |
Talk about a biased interpretation! She didn't need to apologize. The mistake she admitted making was about a total jerk who went on to suggest that suing Watson for libel would be a reasonable reaction to her "refusal" to delete the original tweet.| ...Wow. Why is everyone rushing to be this woman's knight in shining armour... |
Talk about a biased interpretation! I was offering info for people who may not have known what you were talking about.| ...and refusing to admit she can be at fault? |
Talk about a biased interpretation! She admitted she made a mistake. I said she made a mistake. You said she lied.| Dave has a crush on her too maybe? |
Yup, you made it personal again. I think you have a crush on me, and feel the need to insult me at every turn in order to try to hide it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 11:57:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Surly Amy has plenty of support within the skeptical community. I support her. There are some assholes in both the skeptical and atheist communities. |
And the rest of the community should be saying, loudly and clearly, "we don't need you assholes, not in our community." Maintaining a tent so big that one needs to tolerate the intolerable is a lose-lose proposition.| Why is it so important what one commenter says? |
Because he's right and made his point better than I could have?| I mention that because I have seen comments in some atheist bloggers threads that say that the skeptical community has nothing to offer. |
Indeed, many are starting to see skeptics who focus their skepticism solely on UFOs or Nessie as wasting their efforts on trivial stuff, while major issues like society-wide racism or sexism go unaddressed or even defended by those same skeptics. Being a critic of Bigfoot hunters is no longer enough for the atheists whose comments you've been reading, now that their eyes are open to the major problems both within our communities and pervasive throughout the world.
From those atheists' point-of-view, religion is a major contributor to these huge societal problems, and so being an "out" atheist helps reduce religious power, and being an anti-theist helps even more. But there isn't a single person who believes that (for example) women should be subservient to men because Samuel Hannemann said so, and so while fighting for consumer protection against homeopathic fraud is a good thing, it does nothing to protect minorities from their institutionally-defended oppressors, which they (those atheists) see as a much larger problem.
Of course, the assholes aren't labeled assholes merely for putting their energies towards goals which are seen as trivial, but instead for dismissing the fight for social justice as somehow being outside skepticism, or worse for outright defending the sexists, racists, ableists, etc.Of course skepticism has something to offer the social-justice crew, but only if skeptics put some energy into the battle. Those skeptics who don't or won't contribute really don't have anything to offer to those who are in the thick of that fight. |
- 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 - 08/17/2012 : 12:37:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Being a critic of Bigfoot hunters is no longer enough for the atheists whose comments you've been reading... |
I cringe every time I see that silly description of what skeptics do. It's total horse-shit. In fact, cryptozoology is just a fun part of what skeptics do (and not the only one) among some very important and life saving things that are really our main concerns. There is nothing trivial about fighting against quackery for example. And skeptics have a long history of debunking religious claims too. Anyone who wants to use Bigfoot as an example of what our main concerns are can kiss my ass because that person doesn't know shit from shinola.
All we ask is for the claims to be testable. I don't care what the claim is.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 12:59:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
All we ask is for the claims to be testable. I don't care what the claim is. |
But any claim can be made untestable, so that seems like an entirely useless metric to me. Skepticism demands that untestable claims, especially extraordinary ones which make unwarranted assumptions, be rejected until such time that they become testable.
Skepticism is a method for evaluating claims. Science is a method that tests hypotheses. Treating them as synonyms is a mistake. Any skeptic who thinks skepticism is limited only to the testable is confused, in my opinion. That's the attitude that dilutes skepticism to the point of near uselessness, since it allows the purveyors of woo free to spout untestable bullshit without opposition.
|
"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 08/17/2012 13:00:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 13:03:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I cringe every time I see that silly description of what skeptics do. It's total horse-shit. In fact, cryptozoology is just a fun part of what skeptics do (and not the only one) among some very important and life saving things that are really our main concerns. There is nothing trivial about fighting against quackery for example. And skeptics have a long history of debunking religious claims too. Anyone who wants to use Bigfoot as an example of what our main concerns are can kiss my ass because that person doesn't know shit from shinola. |
Do you deny that there exist skeptics who are laser-focused on, say, UFO or ghost debunking?| All we ask is for the claims to be testable. I don't care what the claim is. |
Yes, you don't. Other skeptics do. Other skeptics refuse to engage with social-justice issues because it's not their choice of subject matter. And people like Harriet Hall, who stepped out of her chosen subject in order to dismiss those concerned with social justice within the community.
It's not that the critics don't know shit from shinola, it's that they're being hyperbolically dismissive of people who refuse to turn their skeptical talents to social justice issues, or insist that they can't do so, or outright defend the assholes of the world. |
- 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 - 08/17/2012 : 13:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
All we ask is for the claims to be testable. I don't care what the claim is. |
But any claim can be made untestable, so that seems like an entirely useless metric to me. Skepticism demands that untestable claims, especially extraordinary ones which make unwarranted assumptions, be rejected until such time that they become testable.
Skepticism is a method for evaluating claims. Science is a method that tests hypotheses. Treating them as synonyms is a mistake. Any skeptic who thinks skepticism is limited only to the testable is confused, in my opinion. That's the attitude that dilutes skepticism to the point of near uselessness, since it allows the purveyors of woo free to spout untestable bullshit without opposition.
|
Yes. I agree. In the cases of unfalsifiable claims, we don't have to actually consider them accept to say that because of a lack of evidence, we are skeptical of the claim. And until someone can provide something testable, we can dismiss them as not logically valid. That is exactly why I call myself an agnostic/atheist. I'm agnostic because of the lack of testable evidence and my default conclusion is atheism. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 13:22:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Yes. I agree. In the cases of unfalsifiable claims, we don't have to actually consider them accept to say that because of a lack of evidence, we are skeptical of the claim. And until someone can provide something testable, we can dismiss them as not logically valid.
|
I'm glad we can agree, because I have heard some people argue that "proper" skepticism limits itself to the testable. (And therefore things like religious faith are outside it's purview.)
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 13:30:30 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Do you deny that there exist skeptics who are laser-focused on, say, UFO or ghost debunking? |
Of course not. There are people who are experts in that area. That's their interest. Among us there are a wide variety of interests, and they are all good. Those who become interested in UFO's or ghost debunking become great resources for the rest of us. Why place a value judgment on it? There is plenty of room for people to specialize in whatever interests them. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 14:02:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Those who become interested in UFO's or ghost debunking become great resources for the rest of us. Why place a value judgment on it? There is plenty of room for people to specialize in whatever interests them.
|
Agreed. But I don't think people are necessarily denigrating those specialists, only saying that if skepticism is limited to those pursuits then it isn't of much practical value.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 14:35:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
Those who become interested in UFO's or ghost debunking become great resources for the rest of us. Why place a value judgment on it? There is plenty of room for people to specialize in whatever interests them.
|
Agreed. But I don't think people are necessarily denigrating those specialists, only saying that if skepticism is limited to those pursuits then it isn't of much practical value.
|
I guess. Good thing skepticism isn't limited to those pursuits. And it never has been. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 15:00:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I guess. Good thing skepticism isn't limited to those pursuits. And it never has been.
|
I'm not sure everyone in the skeptic movement would agree with that statement. Many do advocate for strictly scientific skepticism (only testable claims are germane to skepticism). The debate over the "scope" of skepticism has been going for quite some time now.
|
"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 08/17/2012 15:00:37 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2012 : 15:26:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
I guess. Good thing skepticism isn't limited to those pursuits. And it never has been.
|
I'm not sure everyone in the skeptic movement would agree with that statement. Many do advocate for strictly scientific skepticism (only testable claims are germane to skepticism). The debate over the "scope" of skepticism has been going for quite some time now.
|
Yeah. Here's the deal as I see it. "Scientific skepticism" or empiricism is the foundation that skepticism is built on. When I say, "if a claim isn't falsifiable, and can therefor be dismissed," I'm saying that the claimant hasn't provided anything that can be tested. And of course, it's not up to me to prove their claim is false. If testability isn't the bottom line, than I can't make the argument that an untestable claim can be dismissed. Do you see what I mean? I can only employ those other epistemologies after it's been determined that there is no evidence on which the claim is based.
So whether a claim is falsifiable or not, our starting point is always with the question; Is there empirical evidence to support the claim?
I'm not as strict as some, and more strict than others I guess. My default is scientific skepticism and then I move outward from there. But not very far. It's scientific skepticism that informs what to do with any particular claim. I guess I'm a moderate on the issue of scope. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Rebecca Watson Not Appearing at TAM
