|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2013 : 14:27:32 [Permalink]
|
| Oy. |
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 - 02/19/2013 : 20:13:09 [Permalink]
|
Melody Hensley showed up in the comments at PZ's blog to defend CfI:Ben Radford is contracted by CFI part-time to write about skepticism. Personally, I wish he would stick to bigfoot and other shit I don’t care about about... I’ve given my life to CFI. Speak out against Radford if you wish, but dammit he’s small potatoes. I’m working too damn hard to change the culture of this movement to have some dude write a sloppy anti-feminist blog and ruin it all. And:The problem is that they have this blog that they decided from the beginning would have no oversight because FREEZE PEACH and it’s been more trouble than it’s been worth in my opinion. This piece of writing would never make it into Skeptical Inquirer magazine, which Ben is paid to write for. In other news, Harriett Hall is claiming to be nobody's enemy, but then she tried to pick a fight with Ophelia Benson because a person named Will wrote a post criticizing Hall's misunderstandings of sex and gender over on SkepChick (Hall calls that post "hostile," but the most aggressive thing Will did was to call Hall "clueless"). It's bizarre. Benson tried to have a civil discussion about that article of Hall's we mentioned earlier here, but got attacked by Orac for doing so, and so gave up. Hall claims to have been pleased that Benson tried, but then that criticism of Will's apparently soured her on the idea that any productive discussion could be had with anyone. Yeah, that's rational.
Hall had some things to say about EllenBeth Wachs, too, who reacted thusly:Harriet brands me a critic and insults me at the same time. I have to say. I wasn’t really a critic of her until right this moment. I wasn’t a fan of what she did with the t-shirt but didn’t have a bone to pick with her personally until now. Now she has made it personal. The leading lights of skepticism sure do have some jerks amongst them.
In still other (rather oddly coincidental) news, Russell Blackford will be speaking at TAM 2013, about which the JREF says, "The theme of this year’s program is “Fighting the Fakers,” focusing on scientific skepticism." Orac and Harriett Hall will be speaking there, also. As will Michael Shermer, Reginald Finley and Sara Mayhew. Six jerks out of how many main-program speakers? The percentage is getting a bit high for my taste. That's not even counting Penn Jilette and Paul Provenza. |
- 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 - 02/19/2013 : 22:25:17 [Permalink]
|
Looks like a pretty good lineup to me. I've been waiting for Susan Blackmore to be a speaker. Hell. I'd almost go for her alone. Massimo Polidoro is another one. There are always speakers that I'm not fond of or I outright don't agree with. Provenza makes me ill, but then, he's not really a speaker. But overfall it looks good. And you know... I don't follow this stuff the way you do, Dave. I didn't even know that Reginald Finley was one of the bad guys, for example. I don't personally like the way he treated me on his site, but I had no idea. And if Gorski and Hall talk science based medicine, which they will, they are great speakers. Shermer is always there and he's kind of a ho-hum. Jerry Coyne is another one I haven't ever seen there and I'm interested in seeing.
I'm left scratching my head. If anyone thinks Hall isn't a feminist, they're crazy. Even if she stepped in 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 - 02/19/2013 : 23:01:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Looks like a pretty good lineup to me. I've been waiting for Susan Blackmore to be a speaker. Hell. I'd almost go for her alone. Massimo Polidoro is another one. There are always speakers that I'm not fond of or I outright don't agree with. |
26 main program speakers. Six of whom are jerks. For fairness, if we include the host, emcee and keynote speaker, six out of 29 is over 20% jerkitude.| Provenza makes me ill, but then, he's not really a speaker. |
That's why I didn't count him. Or Penn.| But overfall it looks good. |
As I said, "for my taste."| And you know... I don't follow this stuff the way you do, Dave. |
I know that, but that's why I try to err on the side of over-explanation to you. I don't assume you know everything I do.| I didn't even know that Reginald Finley was one of the bad guys, for example. I don't personally like the way he treated me on his site, but I had no idea. |
No, I only included him as a jerk because of the way he treated you. I've got no idea if he's more of a jerk than that.| And if Gorski and Hall talk science based medicine, which they will, they are great speakers. |
But last year, at TAM, Hall proved that she wouldn't confine herself to SBM, but instead make political statements she felt so strongly about that she'd wear the same T-shirt three days in a row after learning that she was causing the discomfort of a TAM sponsor.| Shermer is always there and he's kind of a ho-hum. |
And as you know, he's on the jerk list for comparing mild criticism to Nazis and witch hunts.| Jerry Coyne is another one I haven't ever seen there and I'm interested in seeing. |
I'd be interested in seeing him, too (I'm not sure why I fell out of the habit of reading his blog daily). I'd be a frikkin autograph hound around Dan Ariely, too. Big fan of his (not least because his research basically debunks libertarian ideals about human nature). I'd like to buy Tim Farley several beers, too (though he's not a "main program speaker" either). Doesn't mean I feel strongly enough about them to share the air of a convention hotel with the six jerks for a whole weekend.| If anyone thinks Hall isn't a feminist, they're crazy. |
Please read the words I write. I called Hall a jerk, not an anti-feminist. All anti-feminists are jerks, but not all jerks are anti-feminists. The fact that the feminist jerks happen to be targeting the same people as the anti-feminists needs explanation. I think it might be due to the infective nature of the anti-feminists' nasty propaganda poisoning everything. |
- 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 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2013 : 10:45:02 [Permalink]
|
My thoughts. Radford: An unfunny and misguided attempt at humor.
Myers:
| I’m so over Harriet Hall’s t-shirt. She’s been going on and on, circling around the drain to somehow defend it. It’s simple: she wore it to spite some people she clearly doesn’t like, and to get praise from other people who don’t like Rebecca Watson and the Skepchicks. It’s really that easy. Just admit it and move on. I know it’s hard to admit that you’re that petty, but it would end all this nonsense, and it would be honest. Get over it; the wordy excuse-making is getting embarrassing. Besides, Amanda Marcotte has Hall’s number. |
Never occurs to any of these people that Hall is being sincere in her explanation for wearing the tshirt, and like it or not, she's telling the truth. She hasn't changed her story. Myers and others who insist in reading more into it than there really is, is calling Hall a liar. I doubt that she is, even if some found the tshirt offensive.
|
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 : 12:08:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Never occurs to any of these people that Hall is being sincere in her explanation for wearing the tshirt, and like it or not, she's telling the truth. She hasn't changed her story. Myers and others who inist in reading more into it than there really is, is calling Hall a liar. |
If she's sincere, it's because she has lied to herself. Skeptics aren't immune to that, but they're supposed to fix the situation when it's pointed out to them, not double-down and defend the lie with nonsense. |
- 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 - 03/21/2013 : 10:29:31 [Permalink]
|
Matt Dillahunty announced on his Facebook page that he will be giving a talk on Saturday, March 30th, at the American Atheists' 50th anniversary convention about the relationship between atheism and skepticism.
In preview of his position, he starts with a link from Doubtful News containing their guide to Skepticism which contains this explanation: | "Skeptic does not equal “atheist”. Many Skeptics are atheists, but not all. Skepticism is a process of evaluating claims, not a set of conclusions. Skeptics are a diverse group so lack of religious beliefs should not be assumed. Scientific Skepticism is applied only to testable claims (such as “prayer heals”), not to untestable claims such as the existence of God, who is supernatural. “Is there a God?” is a question outside the realm of science. However, philosophical skepticism can be invoked in considering claims about the supernatural." |
Dillahunty responds: Let me parse this out, for clarity.
| "Skeptic does not equal atheist." |
..that's correct. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you're an atheist (though the correct application of skepticism to religious claims DOES necessarily lead to atheism - as I'll be pointing out at the AA convention at the end of the month). It also doesn't mean you reject homeopathy, ghosts, psychics, etc....but only because being a skeptic doesn't mean you're reliably and universally applying the principles of skepticism.
| "Skepticism is a process of evaluating claims, not a set of conclusions." |
This is correct...but that process does lead to a set of tentative positions, as they note at the beginning of the article.
| "Scientific Skepticism is applied only to testable claims (such as “prayer heals”), not to untestable claims such as the existence of God, who is supernatural." |
Well, this is true...because they've divided skepticism into scientific skepticism and philosophical skepticism. They've only made that delineation on this single issue - and that's part of the problem that I'll be addressing.
Skepticism does have the ability to assess untestable claims - and the tentative conclusion is that by virtue of them being untestable, you cannot have sufficient evidence to support belief. (They note this by appealing to philosophical skepticism.) |
And I think he nails the inconsistency in that position (emphasis mine): But look at what else they do, here: it's all about claims, claims, claims...and then, when dealing with theistic claims, when they're appealing to differences between scientific skepticism and philosophical skepticism, they shift from claims to questions:
""Is there a God? is a question outside the realm of science." - I thought we addressed claims and not questions...why the switch?
The claim is "Some god exists" - that's a claim that can be addressed, like any other. Either there is sufficient supporting evidence to justify believing the claim, or there isn't. The proper application of skepticism, to this claim either supports theism or atheism. There are no other alternatives.
Why all of this tap-dancing about special categories of skepticism? Why the switch from claims (a single prong of propositional logic) to questions (which try to simultaneously address two prongs)?
Why note that the existence of a god is a supernatural question...when so is the existence of ghosts and the countless other paranormal/supernatural claims repeatedly addressed by skeptics?
And why does this tap-dancing only happen with respect to religious claims?
At most, we can only confirm a phenomenon, we can't ever confirm a proposed supernatural cause for that phenomenon.
THIS is what I'm talking about at the convention, so I'm glad they put up their guide. It's dishonest of skeptics to pretend that claims about gods are in some special category that can't be addressed by skepticism while simultaneously saying: "Proponents of a claim will frequently say, “You can’t prove it’s not true.” That’s a ridiculous statement. It’s not up to the Skeptic to show that an extraordinary claim isn’t true. It’s up to those making the claim to provide evidence and reasons why it IS true."
So, clearly they understand the burden of proof - so stop pretending that it doesn't apply to religious claims. |
That is MUCH closer to my own position, so I appreciate having someone as intelligent as Dillahunty articulate it.
And, Kil, you should like this part:
| But I'm not going to just be calling out skeptics and problems like this...I'm going to also be calling out atheists for not being sufficient skeptical. There's plenty of irrational, embarrassing, credibility-damaging content to go around, and the atheist community has (more than?) it's fair share of this. |
Should be a good talk!
|
"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 03/21/2013 10:30:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 11:37:17 [Permalink]
|
| Why note that the existence of a god is a supernatural question...when so is the existence of ghosts and the countless other paranormal/supernatural claims repeatedly addressed by skeptics? |
“Are there ghosts?” is also outside of the realm of science to answer. I don’t see the inconsistency. The existence of ghosts is not ruled out anymore than God is. The same application of testability still applies. Where skeptics can test claims about the existence of God, they do. And that’s pretty much a regular thing. I don’t know many skeptics who aren’t doubtful of the existence of God or Gods or ghosts based on the same criteria. There are some…. Sure.
Humbert:
And, Kil, you should like this part: |
No kidding. That shit drives me crazy.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Philo
Skeptic Friend
66 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2014 : 05:43:21 [Permalink]
|
This is an interesting thread, and a good illustration of the problem with the term "skeptic". Because these scope debates really boil down to that people define "skepticism" differently. In everyday language, the word "skeptic" means simply doubt or incredulity, but not so here.
For Loxton, Novella, Randi and the othe big dragons, "skepticism" really is synonymous with "scientific skepticism". But they disagree about what even that means. By Loxton's essay, scientific skepticism is only about examining paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. It is not even about promoting science and critical thinking, because according to Loxton such movements already exist, and they are older that the (scientific) skeptic movement. Novella takes a slightly broader take, because his podcast is explicitly about promoting science and critical thinking, and he is more interested in neuroscience and psychology, and why people believe silly stuff.
I recall watching a panel on Youtube featuring among others Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, and they very briefly discussed the scope issue. Krauss said that skepticism means that we question everything, and I don't recall anyone protesting that. But that is certainly not what Loxton and Novella mean by skepticism.
The Demon-Haunted World is often viewed as a great skeptical book. Which is a bit weird, because it is really a book promoting science as a way of thinking, and various musings about science, and how skepticism (Sagan doesn't define it, so I think it's fair to assume he means the everyday meaning of the term) is a virtue in science, but one must not be too skeptical as to be closed off to new discoveries. Sagan's musings on how science could arise in other parts of the world if it didn't happen in ancient Greece is way off the scope Loxton would prefer.
Paul Kurtz, in many ways the man why organized (scientific) skepticism arose at all, argued for a broadening of the scope. He was also mostly interested in the promotion of secular humanism, and viewed skepticism as a subset of that. He had a bit of a fall-out with self-identified skeptics not so interested in secular humanism.
The word "skeptic", even "scientific skeptic", clearly can mean anything the user intends. In so, it is a meaningless word. A sword that can mean anything in the end means nothing and might as well cease being used. it's all one big, sorry mess. |
|
|
|
FBM
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2014 : 01:33:24 [Permalink]
|
Pyrrho of Elis, ftw!  |
| Edited by - FBM on 07/01/2014 01:34:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why is There a Skeptical Movement?
