|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2013 : 22:30:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Plato was onto something when he said "The Life Unexamined, is the Life unlived". |
Yes. I always considered that statement an accurate summary of the ethos which drives skepticism. I am becoming more and more dismayed to discover that many who consider themselves guardians of the skeptical movement hold much a narrower view of things.
|
No. I don't think so. All some of us are saying is that organized skepticism should limit itself to testable claims. Not that you can't be skeptical about other things. Some of us just feel that organized skepticism is about science.
Atheism, as even Dave agrees, for example, is not a subset of skepticism. But that doesn't stop me from being very skeptical of religion and the many claims of the existance of gods out there. Sometimes a religious claim falls into orgainized skepticism's wheelhouse, and the claim can be tested.
I love science. I love learning new things. Some of it has nothing to do with organized skepticism, but I love learning about it anyway. And that is life examined. Some people get more out of more philisophical pursutes. And that's cool too. At some level everything we do is built on philispophical foundations, including science and the promotion of it.
|
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 - 02/23/2013 : 06:24:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
No. I don't think so. All some of us are saying is that organized skepticism should limit itself to testable claims. Not that you can't be skeptical about other things. Some of us just feel that organized skepticism is about science. |
Different subject, Kil. Some of the big guns in skepticism appear unwilling to engage in a little self-examination. For examples, Michael Shermer and Harriett Hall have both recently announced that they won't be discussing certain subjects any longer, as if their positions couldn't possibly be wrong (and they are, embarrassingly so). |
- 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 - 02/23/2013 : 11:09:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
No. I don't think so. All some of us are saying is that organized skepticism should limit itself to testable claims. Not that you can't be skeptical about other things. Some of us just feel that organized skepticism is about science. |
Different subject, Kil. Some of the big guns in skepticism appear unwilling to engage in a little self-examination. For examples, Michael Shermer and Harriett Hall have both recently announced that they won't be discussing certain subjects any longer, as if their positions couldn't possibly be wrong (and they are, embarrassingly so).
|
To tell you the truth, it's okay with me if Shermer sticks to what he knows. We have seen him do his libertarian thing, and more recently we saw him and put his foot in his mouth by over reacting to a comment he made. So I'm down with that. I doubt that you will get better from Shermer, his ego being what it is.
Same for Hall. She said she will stick to science based medicine and not talk about the t-shirt any longer. And just how will it help us if she does? She has said what she's going to say on the subject and that's that. Take it or leave it. (Some will clearly not be satisfied with that, but there it is.)
I saw some suggest (in a thread on facebook) that she continues to be an "activist" for the "other side." She rejected that because she doesn't think she of herself as activist for the "other side." I'm willing to accept her explanation that her comment was not aimed at the SkepChick organization, but the term skepchick in general as it applies to her as a Skeptic. Some people clearly aren't, and apparently never will be, no matter how many times she says it. (I should add that I personally think including the word "skepchick" was a bad idea. But I'm willing to give her the benifit of the doubt, much more than I am to Shermer's weird defense of an ill chosen prhase.)
In Halls case, some people want her to recant or concede. But she doesn't agree with her critics. She would prefer to move on and let people think what they will. She is in the position of not being able to control her critics unless, in her view, she agrees with them. In her case I think the logical position for everyone to take is to agree to disagree and move on.
|
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 - 02/23/2013 : 12:06:06 [Permalink]
|
It's ludicrous to think that Hall meant the 1999 meaning of "skepchick" when she specifically noted that the context surrounding the T-shirt dust-up begins with Rebecca Watson's reasons for not appearing at TAM 2012. So Hall posted a rationalization for her bad behavior which is an insult to everyone's intelligence, not just her critics'.
One of the hallmarks of a good skeptic is the ability to say "I was wrong" instead of making illogical post-hoc justifications for why you were supposedly right. Hell, in her bizarre aside about the word "queer," she even tells her critics that it's their job to prove her wrong, not her job to do her own homework. She also completely elided the fact that Watson's reasons for not going to TAM were less about not feeling safe and more about not feeling welcome after DJ threw her under the bus.
Shifting the burden of proof; the use of straw-man arguments and non-sequitors; revisionist history: these aren't things that skeptics "agree to disagree" on. |
- 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 - 02/23/2013 : 12:14:46 [Permalink]
|
Ophelia Benson offers an excellent comment:You know…I have a habit when writing, and I assume a lot of people do, of thinking of objections to what I’m saying while I’m saying it. Or not so much thinking of them, as having a little imp or demon or troll who makes them for me. You know? Anticipating objections. I don’t mean I’m so clever, or I have such a good demon, that I think of all possible objections and thus avoid them, I just mean I do think of some, and I sometimes mention one or more – I interrupt myself to stipulate some reply to an imagined objection – “I don’t mean” or “not that” or “not in the sense of” or the like. It strikes me that Hall and Radford don’t seem to have that habit. Nor does Shermer.
That’s odd, isn’t it? Doesn’t it seem as if that would be an obvious habit for someone who self-describes as a skeptic (which I don’t) to have and cultivate? |
- 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 - 02/23/2013 : 12:33:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Hell, in her bizarre aside about the word "queer," she even tells her critics that it's their job to prove her wrong, not her job to do her own homework. |
That is factually untrue. Or only trivially true to make your point. Your choice. What she said is if she is mistaken, she is open to correction and she has no problem with that. But instead of a correction, she was attacked and no one bothered offering her in that attack, an actual correction. She was pointing out part of the problem with the way some people are operating these days. And I concure.
|
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 - 02/23/2013 : 12:52:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
It's ludicrous to think that Hall meant the 1999 meaning of "skepchick" when she specifically noted that the context surrounding the T-shirt dust-up begins with Rebecca Watson's reasons for not appearing at TAM 2012. So Hall posted a rationalization for her bad behavior which is an insult to everyone's intelligence, not just her critics'. |
She explained why she didn't capitalize "skepchick." She could have, you know. You and others will not accept her explanation for that. So what's new?
|
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 - 02/23/2013 : 14:01:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
That is factually untrue. Or only trivially true to make your point. Your choice. |
The point is that she didn't do any quantitative research before applying the word "most." She expected other people to do that research for her. Lazy.| What she said is if she is mistaken, she is open to correction and she has no problem with that. |
She could have avoided being mistaken at all by doing the work beforehand.| But instead of a correction, she was attacked and no one bothered offering her in that attack, an actual correction. She was pointing out part of the problem with the way some people are operating these days. And I concure. |
Perhaps. I haven't examined the alleged attacks to see if she's correct in that, or even to see if they're actually attacks (she called Will's criticism of her "hostile," so it's clear she doesn't avoid hyperbole, either).| She explained why she didn't capitalize "skepchick." You and others will not accept her explanation for that. So what's new? |
Do you think I've got some sort of grudge against Harriett Hall?  Have I got some sort of history of dismissing Hall's explanations? Have these "others"?
All by itself, the fact that Hall's shirt was a response specifically to Rebecca Watson makes Hall's explanation unbelievable. The capitalization issue looks like a post-hoc attempt at covering her ass, and it's just not credible. We're being asked to believe that the front of the T-shirt was in response to Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson, and the back of the T-shirt was a completely independent thought that had nothing to do with the front.
I don't think you'd accept this if it were coming from a not-famous skeptic or someone out in woo-land. |
- 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 - 02/23/2013 : 14:25:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
All by itself, the fact that Hall's shirt was a response specifically to Rebecca Watson makes Hall's explanation unbelievable. |
And she has never denied that part. What she does assert is that she used the word "skepchick" as more of a generic, than an attack on the "SkepChicks."
Given that she has never denied her reasons for what was on the front of her T-shirt, why is it so important to not give her the benefit of the doubt with regard to the back of her shirt?
Dave:
She could have avoided being mistaken at all by doing the work beforehand. |
So could a lot of us. We sometimes make mistakes. She isn't asserting that she didn't make a mistake.
Dave:
Have I got some sort of history of dismissing Hall's explanations? Have these "others"? |
Yeah. Since the T-shirt incident at the last TAM some people have refused to accept her explanation, including you, Dave. You and others have left her with only one way out. She must agree that she lied or that she is at the very least she is lying to herself. But what if she isn’t? The other possibility is not on the table and anyone who thinks it is is being naive. |
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 - 02/23/2013 : 15:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And she has never dinied that part. What she does assert is that she used the word "skepchick" as more of a generic, than an attack on the "SkepChicks." |
And that's what I find unbelievable, given what she put on the front and why. If the front of the shirt weren't a reference to the number-one Skepchick, I could believe that the back had nothing to do with the Skepchicks.| Given that she has never denied her reasons for what was on the front of her T-shirt, why is it so important to not give her the benifit ouf the doubt with regard to the back of her shirt? |
I don't have that much doubt to offer. As I said, it's not credible. I can give her explanation as much of a benefit of a doubt as I can to a claim that prayer cures the common cold.Dave:
She could have avoided being mistaken at all by doing the work beforehand. |
So could a lot of us. We sometimes make mistakes. She isn't asserting that she didn't make a mistake. |
No, she's asserting her right to believe that her non-researched opinion is correct until someone else demonstrates otherwise.
Isn't skepticism about getting things right, and refusing to allow our mere beliefs to trump reality?
You do understand that this is why "some people" are so upset over these recent incidents, don't you? Some of the "leading lights" of skepticism are acting in manners totally unbecoming to skeptics. If Hall, Shermer and Radford weren't the big fish that they are, if they were just run-of-the-mill skeptics like me, then if the people who are currently their critics noticed them acting in these ways, the most they would do would be to offer a mocking dismissal. No, it is because Hall, Shermer and Radford are leaders and other people follow their leads that it's important not to let them off the hook (agree to disagree) when they act poorly. They aren't just dismissed as kooks, but instead asked to behave as a skeptic should, by seriously considering their critics' arguments, and responding to them with either serious counter-arguments or acceptance of error.
And on another note, it appears that Hall (at least) thinks that her intentions mitigate all possible consequences of her actions. Even if everything she says in her explanation were 100% accurate, she shouldn't have kept wearing the damned thing after learning how offensive "some people" found it to be. That act meant she went from being naive (in thinking she was communicating her intended message clearly) to being just plain mean. She basically said then (and again now), "I don't give a damn about Amy Roth's feelings, I want everyone to see my T-shirt!" It was (and is) narcissistic and cruel. As a social movement, we can get along fine without assholes like her at the forefront. |
- 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 - 02/23/2013 : 15:30:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If the front of the shirt weren't a reference to the number-one Skepchick, I could believe that the back had nothing to do with the Skepchicks. |
It's also notable to point out that Hall did nothing to dissuade anyone from coming to the conclusion the statement was an indirect dig at the Skepchicks while she was wearing it. For someone who feels so misunderstood now, I find it odd she didn't bother correcting those false impressions at the time.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2013 : 15:33:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
Have I got some sort of history of dismissing Hall's explanations? Have these "others"? |
Yeah. Since the T-shirt incident at the last TAM some people have refused to accept her explanation, including you, Dave. You and others have left her with only one way out. She must agree that she lied or that she is at the very least she is lying to herself. But what if she isn’t? The other possibility is not on the table and anyone who thinks it is is being naive. |
I've explained why I find her explanation to be not credible. My conclusion is that she must be lying to herself. But so what? As skeptics, we all understand that people lie to themselves all the damn time, and so we must be on-guard against doing so, and fix it when we're caught doing it (either by ourselves or others). Admitting to a mistake - or at the very least a method of communication which could easily be misinterpreted, a possibility Hall doesn't seem to entertain - would be an excellent example of skepticism in action.
Doubling down and defending the lie is unskeptical, and tends to invoke the Streisand Effect when done publicly. All she needed to do was to say something like, "my message was unclear and my actions with regard to Amy Roth were thoughtless, sorry," and everyone would have moved on. But no, it's gotten to the point where Ophelia Benson has now said this:I find I can no longer honestly say I admire her for the pioneering [in second-wave feminism], because she has been so persistently and immovably unpleasant and vindictive, and so incapable of admitting any error. Is that a good look for the skepticism movement? |
- 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 - 02/23/2013 : 15:39:49 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
No, she's asserting her right to believe that her non-researched opinion is correct until someone else demonstrates otherwise. |
Oh bullshit. That is factually untrue. Or only trivially true to make your point. Your choice.
We've been though this.
Now she's an asshole that we don't need.
Really, there is nothing I can say here. I care about Amy too. But everything is black and white and I can't deal with that kind of thinking. |
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 - 02/23/2013 : 15:43:21 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
It's also notable to point out that Hall did nothing to dissuade anyone from coming to the conclusion the statement was an indirect dig at the Skepchicks while she was wearing it. |
She has never denied that her T-shirt was in answer to Rebbeca's refusal to come to TAM. In fact, she came right out and said it. |
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 - 02/23/2013 : 15:47:23 [Permalink]
|
| Am I suppose to hang on Benson's every word now? Do you? Obviously you are of the same opinion. I don't share it. |
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
