This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

2

Comments

  • Rochelle: am i just as confused as you are?
    i meant it the other way around
    me: yes
    Rochelle: i dunno
    me: probably more so, because you're a woman
    Rochelle: indeed
    me: because apparently I'm mysognistic
    Rochelle: stupid ovaries.
    me: yeah
  • This is the part of the essay that frustrates me the most. He cherry picks a few areas of science that may be influenced a bit too much by politics and says he is rejecting skepticism based on that, but again, what is his alternative? Is he rejecting all of science because some parts are flawed? This guy is seriously bitching just to hear his own voice.
    He's advocating exactly what the title of the article suggests, and exactly what the first two paragraphs lay out in plain language: rejecting skepticism as an identity. He never at any point says the we should reject science.
    I'm no longer a skeptic, but not one of my core beliefs has changed.
  • edited October 2011
    Well, the studies that get funded and the things scientists concentrate on (see the pharmaceutical industry) are often influenced by social and political pressures. However, the scientific method itself is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. Scientists are often biased, but the pure method should be independent of that. Skepticism is supposed to be like that as well. Just because you have some douchey skeptics does not mean skepticism as a philosophy is flawed.
    TL:DR; this is basically like the anime fans who don't want to be known as such because of the fan culture. What this guy is torqued about is "skeptic culture," I guess.
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • edited October 2011
    rejecting skepticism as an identity.
    Which is stupid. It's like the atheist who doesn't want to call himself an "atheist" because some people don't like the word. Instead they call themselves "agnostic." You're devaluing the term, contributing to term confusion, and being intellectually dishonest for the sake of feeling superior to other people.

    In fact, I go so far as to call it a form of intellectual cowardice. So you have all the trappings of a skeptic but refuse to call yourself a skeptic because other skeptics are assholes? How about standing up for non-asshole skeptics. Oh wait, that would require spine. Much better to withdraw from the argument completely.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • In fact, I go so far as to call it a form of intellectual cowardice. So you have all the trappings of a skeptic but refuse to call yourself a skeptic because other skeptics are assholes? How about standing up for non-asshole skeptics. Oh wait, that would require spine. Much better to withdraw from the argument completely.
    Well, he is a shadow monster. Do those have spines?
  • They have tendrils, for tendriling shit.
  • Technically, isn't our agenda to stop people lying and making things up?
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    lots of crossed out text
    tl;dr: I can't express myself with any clarity.
    But Neoliberialism is an economic policy/stance/opinion...
    Curiously, through he says "Neoliberalism" he clearly wants to say "Neocolonialism" (Skeptics want to remake the world in the "free" western image.)
    Technically, isn't our agenda to stop people lying and making things up?
    It was technically the Nazi agenda to improve the lot of the working class and eliminate genetic disorders.
    Post edited by a1s on
  • I think it was their means people had problems with. The Chinese government don't go around kill every third child people have but their aim is still to keep the population from exploding.
  • In fact, I go so far as to call it a form of intellectual cowardice. So you have all the trappings of a skeptic but refuse to call yourself a skeptic because other skeptics are assholes? How about standing up for non-asshole skeptics. Oh wait, that would require spine. Much better to withdraw from the argument completely.
    I'm going to have to say I disagree with a part of that sentiment. Context is important. Last month I had a self-proclaimed "marine" try to start a bar-fight with me because I wouldn't kowtow before him when I wouldn't self-identify as a 'merican since I didn't know what he thought that meant. Specifically, I wasn't going to stand for him saying that a 'merican life is necessarily worth more than any non-merican life. That's how I feel about a lot of these terms. When I'm talking to a specific individual, I first want to understand what a term means to them before I'm willing to say I am one or not. I was very absolutely clear that I'm a little fond of my country over other countries, and that I hold most people who serve in the military in high regard, but I wasn't going to let him define me by a term that he used in a way that would not be true for me. After he sobered up and weighted my actual words - he seemed like a pretty nice and reasonable guy - but I think that some of this "intellectual cowardice" also comes from not wanting to be labeled falsely by a persons biases. And all the better if you can go from there into explaining what the "real" definition of a term is - and coming to a mutual comprehension of that.
  • edited October 2011
    Specifically, I wasn't going to stand for him saying that a 'merican life is necessarily worth more than any non-merican life.
    I still contend that it's weak to say, "I'm not an American because I disagree with your definition of 'American.'" There's substantially more power in saying, "I am an American, and I disagree with your definition of 'American.'" Instead of focusing on divisiveness by saying, "No, it's you and me," you're saying, "Look, this is us we're talking about. Let's both come to an agreement."

    Yes, context is important. The author of the article in question is retreating from the debate in order to claim some kind of moral high ground. I think refusing to self-identify as an American simply because you disagree with certain definitions of "American" is self-important pretentious nonsense. And to do so in front of a Marine is just poking somebody to get into a fight.

    There's a lot of power in taking a word and attempting to re-brand it. See The Slut Walk and associated movements. Or how I encourage furries to say, "Yeah, we're weird," because being "weird" doesn't have to be a bad thing.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Specifically, I wasn't going to stand for him saying that a 'merican life is necessarily worth more than any non-merican life.
    I still contend that it's weak to say, "I'm not an American because I disagree with your definition of 'American.'" There's substantially more power in saying, "I am an American, and I disagree with your definition of 'American.'" Instead of focusing on divisiveness by saying, "No, it's you and me," you're saying, "Look, this is us we're talking about. Let's both come to an agreement."
    Solve the real problem first. Quibling over definitions isn't worth the time or effort. Too often, two people use a term in different ways. I've always been prone to first trying to get inside their head and translate what their words mean into what those words mean to me. I would go so far as to say, "fuck definitions and titles, let's get to what you mean."
  • edited October 2011
    It might just be the separation between American Skeptics and Australian Skeptics, but I've not actually observed a single one of the problems he's talked about, but for the Elevator incident he mentioned, which obviously I watched from afar. So, if I might suggest, I think his problem isn't with Skeptics, but merely a sub-group of them that he has encountered.

    Though, I must admit, I do frown upon his attitude of "Oh well things I don't like so I'm gonna quit and talk shit about it" - Did he ever consider trying to...oh, I don't know...not be a useless little whinger, and actually fucking do something about it?

    Edit - Oh, and I should add, most people who behave in the manner he described, down here, they're very quickly either corrected or kicked to the curb.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited October 2011
    As far as they are concerned, western liberal democracies have made all the political, social, cultural and economic advances they need to.
    Right, because there are no Asian skeptics.
    Post edited by Ikatono on
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    Skepticism: "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence."
    Since when? Scepticism IIRC is the method of 'suspended judgment and systematic doubt' , and if you wanted to make a blurb, it should go "Any claim, no matter how obvious, requires evidence", we don't get to pick and chose what claims we like.
    Or not? Maybe the word has taken a new meaning ("doubt concerning only the basic religious principles", both can be found on Meriam Webster , TBH, but I always assumed we were 1.) and that's what the fuss is about? I'm pretty sure I'm not a sceptic either then.
    Post edited by a1s on
  • Since when?
    Since Carl Sagan.
  • I believe you misspelled his name. I think it's "Carl Fucking Sagan".
  • Since when is skepticism political? The elitist bit is to suggest that only liberals can be skeptics.
  • The elitist bit is to suggest that only liberals can be skeptics.
    Because only liberals are elitists...?
  • The elitist bit is to suggest that only liberals can be skeptics.
    Because only liberals are elitists...?
    Every group has elitists.
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    Since Carl Sagan
    I can't watch a video right now, but I'm willing to bet you 10 pairs of clean socks against a single toothpick he doesn't say* "only extraordinary claims need evidence" in it. I would be really sad if that was so.

    *nor implies it in anything close to an obvious way.
    Post edited by a1s on
  • I'm willing to bet you 10 pairs of clean socks against a single toothpick he doesn't say "only extraordinary claims need evidence" in it.
    Funny, because I never said that either.
  • what's in that video then?
  • edited October 2011
    he doesn't say "only extraordinary claims need evidence" in it.
    Unless you accidentally a word, of course he didn't, because that's obviously fucking stupid. As stupid as the "Is gullible in the dictionary?" test - What, do you think that being a skeptic means that every single thing someone claims needs to be rigorously tested? I'm sorry, that's sillier than a two-bob watch.

    I think this guy - the article's author, not A1s - has just had some bad experiences with some of the less than exemplary examples of the skeptical movement - hey, every movement has them - and has decided to tar and feather ALL skeptics with the same brush. Makes a few big and very strange assumptions and assertions, too.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    His problem, I think, is that while every community has trolls , Sceptic community seems to have them at the very top of the hierarchy (he mentions people he doesn't like by name, and they are very much the 'face of scepticism'). This causes him to distance himself from the sceptic community.
    Unless you accidentally a word, of course he didn't, because that's fucking stupid.
    That would seem to be my point. Anyway, the quote is by a 19th century philosopher William James, in case you were wondering, and doen''t have the word "only" in it. My point however is that modern scpetics seem to behave like it does, and use this quote to justify it.
    Post edited by a1s on
  • My point however is that modern scpetics seem to behave like it does, and use this quote to justify it.
    Do you have proof?
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    My point however is that modern sceptics seem to behave like it does, and use this quote to justify it.
    Do you have proof?
    I have anecdotes. Which is why I'm don't qualify as a scientist/sceptic.
    Edit: I've reread my previous post and perhaps I am being unclear, I don't mean that sceptics never ask evidence of things they expect might be true, but merely that they think evidence is optional, if both the writer and the reader agree something is probably true. And that this is a dangerous trend.
    Post edited by a1s on
  • edited October 2011
    but merely that they think evidence is optional
    Well, there is a trend of accepting premises once sufficient evidence is presented. For example, pasteurization of milk is commonly held to rid it of pathogens, sufficiently so that we don't routinely test it for the presence of those pathogens. We still have tests in place to ensure that the process is followed, but we no longer bother verifying that the process does what we think - we've already demonstrated that it does.

    Sometimes, people do research into things that are well-established, but it's really pretty impractical to demand a robust set of evidence for things which are well-documented, well-researched, and commonly accepted.

    Technically flawed? Yes. However, since we're talking about William James, let's talk about pragmatism. You can demand evidence for everything you hear, but eventually that stops getting you anywhere. We like getting stuff done, so yes, we very often only demand evidence for particularly contentious issues.

    Your mistake is that your perspective is built from a handful of vocal people. Skeptics, by and large, do demand evidence for most premises. We are loudest about those things which are the most outrageous, and that is what tends to stick out in most people's minds.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • If you wish to prove the existence of an apple pie, you must first prove the universe.
  • If you wish to prove the existence of an apple pie, you must first prove the universe.
    Are you purposefully misquoting?
Sign In or Register to comment.