|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2012 : 14:29:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, my point is still that advocating in favor of scientific skepticism will not be enough. As much as scientific skeptics would like to remain neutral in their official organization policies, my conclusion is that they're going to need to enter politics to actually make the societal changes they want to make. If the "brand" is strictly controlled to only promote scientific skepticism, then I think the brand will fail.
|
Then you should be happy with the direction that the CSI is taking:
About the Center For Inquiry
Advocacy |
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 - 06/15/2012 : 16:15:30 [Permalink]
|
I haven't seen her mentioned yet (sorry if I missed it), but Greta Christina has written a few relevant posts on this topic.
Why Atheism Demands Social Justice and So-Called “Litmus Tests”: Skepticism and Social Justice: There’s this argument that keeps cropping up. Some skeptics argue that skepticism — skeptical organizations, conferences, publications, meetups, etc. — should branch out from the traditional topics we’re usually associated with, such as astrology and UFOs and Bigfoot, and spend more time applying skepticism to social justice issues. The drug war; abstinence-only sex education; laws about birth control; laws about homosexuality and same-sex marriage; police policy… that sort of thing.
The idea here — and it’s one I hold myself — is that, if we’re serious about making skepticism appealing to a more diverse population than the white, middle-class, middle-aged, college-educated men we’ve usually attracted, we need to do more than just have more women and people of color speak at our conferences. We need to widen the scope of our attentions, outside the topics that traditionally concern white, middle-class, middle-aged, college-educated men, and into topics that more commonly concern women, people of color, poor people, blue-collar people, people who don’t have college degrees. If these folks don’t see skepticism taking on issues that matter to them, they’re less likely to get involved with skepticism, or even to see skepticism as having anything to do with them.
Also, the idea is that these issues, you know, matter. They affect people’s lives. Decisions often get made about these issues with little or no evidence or critical thinking — and as a result, the decisions that get made are bad ones, and they seriously screw up people’s lives in concrete ways. |
|
"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
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2012 : 16:55:59 [Permalink]
|
I think what the CSI is doing is good. At least it's a good start. But I can't, for the life of me, see how we can make skepticism something that is about promoting liberal caueses, after basically telling Michael Shermer that his politics are not skepticism, and he should knock it off. Greta Christina is outright suggesting that skepticism be tied to liberalism in the same way that Shermer thought it should be tied to libertarianism. Bad idea! She even included an ad-hom about who skeptics are. No Greta. It's about things that can be tested. It's not about middle aged white guys. Jesus!
As freethinkers, we can do it. But not as skeptics.
The one thing I will agree with her on is that if a claim is testable, than it's fair game. No one is stopping her from looking at studies and writing a skeptical article that demonstrates the drug war is a failure. It's been done though. Just not by skeptics. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2012 : 17:18:55 [Permalink]
|
| The difference is Shermer is really wrong. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2012 : 17:36:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
The difference is Shermer is really wrong.
|
Perhaps. But that wasn't the main thrust of the argument against what he was proposing. And look. Just because we agree with someones politics, doesn't mean it's good or even relevant to skepticism. As it is, because of many of the claims that are relevant to skepticism, we do come down on the the liberal side. Mainly because liberals aren't as hostile to science as conservatives are. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2012 : 20:53:50 [Permalink]
|
I'd read the first one, though it didn't "click" with me until later. The second one is new to me. She quotes Barbara Drescher saying this:Skeptics can discuss evidence regarding specific questions (e.g., whether outcomes-based teaching is effective), but skepticism cannot tell us whether or not the education of children should be the responsibility of the government. This blows my mind. She is saying that scientists cannot collect empirical data and analyze it to answer the question of what level of oversight best educates our children. Hell, because it is an open question, we could ethically - with various legislatures' help - devise an experiment to directly compare Federal, state, local and even homeschooling outcomes. And with conclusion(s) in hand, we could petition the various legislatures to implement the "winner."
Of course, which outcomes are most important and what the over-arching goal of (presumably primary) education should be are debatable. But they are debatable, not immune to critical thought.
Drescher continues:When groups endorse specific values and conclusions which cannot be empirically supported, they’re endorsing ideologies and, in the case of skepticism at least, rejecting the very methods they claim to promote. Then Drescher cannot promote skepticism from within the skeptic movement without being a hypocrite. Advocating for a wider acceptance of skepticism cannot be empirically supported. It is a value. The JREF, RDF, NSCE, CSI, CfI (etc.) are all non-skeptical in their advocacy, according to Drescher. So is her whole blog, since combating B.S. is value-driven.
Drescher also frets that "we don't all agree" on solutions to social problems. We also don't all agree on how best to advocate for skepticism. Go figure.
The money quote from Greta:We’re not asking for a litmus test. We’re not demanding that all skeptics be politically progressive; we’re not demanding that all skeptics agree on a particular position on the drug war, or policing policies, or birth control policies, or same-sex marriage, or any social justice issue. Any more than we demand that all skeptics agree about God, or the soul, or life after death. Some individuals may make individual arguments for particular positions on particular issues — but that’s very different from saying that all skeptics have to march in political lockstep in order to be considered skeptics. We’re not asking all skeptics to agree on these issues. We’re asking skeptics to think about them. And talk about them. And focus attention on them. And give a damn about them. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2012 : 21:07:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I think what the CSI is doing is good. At least it's a good start. |
But from what I read from your links, it's all top-down stuff: the promotion of science education and secularism. My OP is all about a bottom-up approach.| But I can't, for the life of me, see how we can make skepticism something that is about promoting liberal caueses, after basically telling Michael Shermer that his politics are not skepticism, and he should knock it off. |
You're missing the point. Nobody is going to disagree that skepticism isn't politics. What's being said is that the skeptic movement needs to tackle political questions.
Shermer and his fans seemed to be saying that all skeptics should be libertarians. That's as wrong as accusing Greta Christina of wanting all skeptics to be liberals.| Greta Christina is outright suggesting that skepticism be tied to liberalism in the same way that Shermer thought it should be tied to libertarianism. |
No, she specifically denied that intention.| Bad idea! She even included an ad-hom about who skeptics are. No Greta. It's about things that can be tested. It's not about middle aged white guys. Jesus! |
No, she said that if skeptics focus solely on the problems that interest middle-aged white guys, then the movement will be hard-pressed to interest people who aren't middle-aged white guys. If the movement were to tackle questions more specific to women and brown people, then we will see our ranks grow with women and brown people. This isn't a hard calculus, nor is it an ad hom.| As freethinkers, we can do it. But not as skeptics. |
If as skeptics, we insist on avoiding politics, then we will not succeed if the goal is to get a majority of people to be skeptics.| The one thing I will agree with her on is that if a claim is testable, than it's fair game. |
Then you, too, should be taking Drescher to task for her remarks.| No one is stopping her from looking at studies and writing a skeptical article that demonstrates the drug war is a failure. It's been done though. Just not by skeptics. |
Ed Brayton isn't a skeptic? |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2012 : 21:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Gorgo
The difference is Shermer is really wrong. |
Perhaps. But that wasn't the main thrust of the argument against what he was proposing. |
It was for me. The fact that skeptics shouldn't have to face a political litmus test was secondary to the fact that libertarianism is an ethical nightmare because it cannot work as advertised in the real 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
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2012 : 22:50:27 [Permalink]
|
The money quote from Greta looks more like a disclaimer to me. She denied her intention was to be excluding, but at the same time all of those areas of potential skepticism she mentions are progressive causes.
By the way. Not that this should be an exclusive club or anything, but do you really think our goal should be to get the majority of people to be skeptics? It would be nice if there were a lot more critical thinking going on, which is a problem with education, but skeptics? Why? Perhaps you don't see skepticism the way I do. (Perhaps?) Skeptics are activists. That's how I see us. It's not as though we can ever hope to get the majority of people to be activists. I'll settle for a lot more critical thinking going on. And even that is setting my sights on a very high goal.
Here's what I wrote to the skeptic society a while back in response to a blog by Shermer. It pretty much lays out my argument for skepticism, the brand, to be apolitical. That doesn't mean we should avoid politics. What it means is it should not be seen as being associated with any particular politic:
Re: The Other ‘L’ Word: Why I am a Libertarian
To whom it may concern:
About a decade ago, an article appeared in Skeptical Inquirer magazine on politics and the difficulties of choosing a political party which suggested that libertarianism was the best choice for a skeptic.
At TAM5, Michael Shermer talked about his new book “The Mind of the Market” which essentially promotes libertarianism. Also there were Nick Gillespie and Ronald Bailey from Reason Magazine. They gave a fine talk right up to the point that it became a promotion for libertarianism. They even took a show of hands to see how many of us skeptics were libertarians. Included in our folders were some Reason Magazine materials.
At TAM6, materials from the Atlas Society were included in our folders and they also had a table set up to promote their particular version of libertarianism.
I didn’t see a similar table set up to endorse any other political viewpoint.
More recently, there were two blog posts by Michael Shermer that dealt with his view of libertarianism and how he became one. He mentions, parenthetically, that it his belief that while he agrees that the skeptical movement should be politically neutral, it isn’t because there is not a 50/50 split of liberals and conservatives. I also agree that as a community, skeptics should be politically neutral regardless of how many libertarians, conservatives, liberals or whatever our political worldview is. I reject his claim that we are not neutral, based on what I regard as a non sequitur fallacy on his part. That we will probably never have an even split of any given politic does not mean that we can’t approach those things that require the application of skeptical analysis and critical thinking, apolitically.
I see a real danger in promoting a default politic for skeptics. And deny it or not, I also see a push in that direction. It seems to me that there is a tacit acceptance that libertarianism can be promoted in skeptical blogs, skeptical meetings, and skeptical magazines. All of those are places where skepticism and critical thinking should be promoted, and not politics when it does not apply to our brand of skepticism, which is based on the scientific method, the application of critical thinking, and the rules of logic. The danger I see is that if we are ever identified as a community with a “group” politic, we will be that much easier to dismiss on grounds that have nothing to do with our critical analysis of whatever claim it is that we have recognized as dubious in nature. We open ourselves up to being dismissed not because of our methods for evaluating claims of fact, but because, “hey, those people are just a bunch of [insert political persuasion here].”
There is also the risk of running off those skeptics who do not conform to a default politic for skeptics. There is room under our tent for conservatives, liberals, libertarians and what have you, as long was we remain politically neutral with regard to the kind of skepticism that we promote. (I would like to remind Dr. Shermer that we are not children. So far, for the most part, we have been able to maintain our ability to be politically neutral when regarding claims of fact that require a skeptical analysis. How many of us hold this or that political persuasion just doesn’t matter, as long as we approach those things of concern to skeptics, apolitically.)
We are still free to attack those things our government does that are subject to attack because they may be based on demonstrably flawed reasoning, bad science or religion. And we are free to argue politics among ourselves as long as we understand that those kinds of debates most often come down to a matter of opinion and are much less subject to the kind of strict critical analysis that we use when evaluating claims fact, much as we would like to think otherwise. But those kinds of debates, that almost everyone has, skeptic or not, shouldn’t be a part of the public face of the skeptical movement.
The Skepticblog is very much a part of the public face of skepticism. And Dr. Shermer is a very influential voice in our movement. Will Dr. Shermer offer his thoughts about libertarianism in his column at Scientific American anytime soon? Will we be reading the reason why one or the other bloggers who writes for the Skepticblog is a conservative or a liberal anytime soon? I doubt it.
The skeptical community should not be identified as having any political affiliation. Any promotion of such an affiliation will only serve to dilute the purpose of our brand of skepticism, which is to promote critical thinking and science as the best way to evaluate claims of fact. We need to stay away from the promotion of any one political ideology or we risk losing our scientific credibility while at the same time handing to those who would like to see us “just go away” yet another excuse to dismiss us.
Regards,
David Glück
Skeptic Friends Network
www.skepticfriends.org |
The response from Pat Linse:
Artskeptic@aol.com
to david_gluck
I agree with you as do many others in the Skeptics Society.
The opinions expressed in Michael's blogs are his personal views, not those of the Skeptics Society. Graphing the response to Michael's various blogs we find that while response to his non-Libertarian blogs has so far been positive, the response to his Libertarian blogs is overwhelmingly negative. (This is when each individual is allowed one "vote." In one of his last blogs 130 responses out of 520 were written by just 3 enthusiastic individual Libertarians.)
Thanks so much for the response which I have forwarded to Michael.
The TAM people do listen to criticism by the way. You might send a version of your email to them. A few years ago a couple speakers chose to bad mouth religion and engage in a bit of name calling. I understand a lot of people complained about the tone of those attacks and they were successfully discouraged.
Pat Linse
Cofounder of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine |
|
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 - 06/16/2012 : 10:47:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The money quote from Greta looks more like a disclaimer to me. She denied her intention was to be excluding, but at the same time all of those areas of potential skepticism she mentions are progressive causes. |
I disagree that things like social justice and human rights are "liberal" or "progressive" causes. These are things which all mainstream political parties ostensibly support, at least in principle and in public. How we go about fixing these problems might be debatable, but they are generally recognized as problems. Suggesting that skeptics should address issues of social justice should be as uncontroversial as saying we need to improve the public's scientific literacy.
| By the way. Not that this should be an exclusive club or anything, but do you really think our goal should be to get the majority of people to be skeptics? It would be nice if there were a lot more critical thinking going on, which is a problem with education, but skeptics? Why? Perhaps you don't see skepticism the way I do. (Perhaps?) Skeptics are activists. That's how I see us. It's not as though we can ever hope to get the majority of people to be activists. I'll settle for a lot more critical thinking going on. And even that is setting my sights on a very high goal. |
I think Greta would agree that skeptics should be activists. But that doesn't mean our only goal is to create other activists. It should be to help those who stand to benefit most by our activism.
If one of our goals is to end superstition and promote critical thinking, then we need to address the social factors which impede critical thinking. Religion and superstition thrive in climates of fear (as do hate and bigotry). Fear makes people irrational. Fear makes people desperate. Fear causes people to make bad decisions and trust in people and institutions unworthy of their trust. Fear makes people latch onto comforting rituals, even those of no practical value. Because of these tendencies, victims of social injustice are often duped into perpetuating their own inequity. Despite the inherent misogyny in the Abrahamic religions, for example, generations of women have prayed in churches, temples and synagogs for centuries without effect, yet few of them seem to catch on.
If we want to compete with the world's pious conmen for people's hearts and minds, then we need to be involved where they are involved. They have staked out human misery and suffering as "their turf," because they know that's when people are easiest to manipulate. Too often we spend our time trying to undo the affects of that manipulation rather than trying to prevent it. But skepticism can give people better options. It can give them a voice with which to challenge authority and systems of oppression. Skepticism can be used to contest unjust laws with unsupportable justifications. Skepticism can empower people to shed useless superstitions and work toward realistic and attainable change. Skepticism allows people to see situations more clearly and plan more effectively. Knowledge is power, after all.
And the more people who understand the value of critical thinking, the stronger our movement will be overall. I think that's something any skeptic should be able to get behind.
|
"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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 11:43:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The money quote from Greta looks more like a disclaimer to me. She denied her intention was to be excluding, but at the same time all of those areas of potential skepticism she mentions are progressive causes. |
Asking for people to discuss an issue is not a request for them to take a particular side, Kil. Advocacy for abortion freedom is certainly a liberal cause, but advocacy for criminalizing abortion is a conservative cause. Saying that we should talk about abortion doesn't imply that one need to take one side or the other.
Or take nuclear power as another example. Many liberals seem to be okay with nukes being a part of our overall energy policy, while the more extreme environmentalists don't even want the possibility discussed, despite being liberals themselves. Nuclear power is a political issue, but not a liberal issue.
And has already been pointed out, skeptics are involved in political issues already. The NCSE is a political organization because creationism is a political issue. Ditto global climate change. These are political (and moral!) issues, yet major skeptical groups don't seem to have qualms with entering the discussions and advocating for a particular position.
No, the problems seem to arise only when there is no clear-cut scientific position to take on an issue. There is no science that says abortion should be legal. There is no science that says nuclear power is necessary for our future energy needs. So we don't see skeptical organizations entering these discussions.
But, there is also no science that says teaching our kids only solid science about evolution is a good thing. There is no science that says we should avoid rising sea levels. While skeptics advocate in favor of these things yet insist they are political neutral, they are being hypocrites.
But I just realized that political neutrality is only a political goal, anyway. It's intent is nothing but PR. But if we, as skeptics, advocate for a particular position on an issue of public interest, it should be because that's what our skepticism has led us to believe is currently the best solution to the problem, not because we are liberals (for example). If that ideal is strictly maintained, then it won't matter what other people think of us, we will have strength in the truth.
Besides, when Christians who side with strong evolution education are labeled atheists (or worse), or when skeptical women who argue for mere equal treatment are labeled feminazis (or worse) by men in our own movement, it is crystal clear that the PR problem is beyond repair by simply stating that our organizations are politically neutral. It's going to be assumed (rightly or wrongly) by our political opponents that we are advocating against creationism and against the climate status-quo not because we have come to particular conclusions after much critical thought, but because we are dirty hippy liberals (while the mostly-liberal anti-vaxxers will think us to be fascists, go figure).
And it is laughable to think that anyone would think that skeptic groups can be politically neutral when they regularly speak about their advocacy work in lobbying legislatures or holding public rallies. Political neutrality is not a believable goal while being politically active. Perhaps the term you should switch to is "non-partisan."
Until, of course, the Critical Thought Party publishes its platform and fields candidates.| Perhaps you don't see skepticism the way I do. (Perhaps?) Skeptics are activists. That's how I see us. It's not as though we can ever hope to get the majority of people to be activists. I'll settle for a lot more critical thinking going on. And even that is setting my sights on a very high goal. |
With a small s, skeptics are people who use the methods of critical thought to answer questions to which those methods are applicable ("Which car best suits my needs?" "Do I need to take more vitamins?" "How can I lose 20 pounds?" Etc.) I'm not suggesting that our goal should be for the majority of people to join the Skeptic Movement.| Here's what I wrote to the skeptic society a while back in response to a blog by Shermer. It pretty much lays out my argument for skepticism, the brand, to be apolitical. That doesn't mean we should avoid politics. What it means is it should not be seen as being associated with any particular poltic: |
And I'm certainly not saying that skeptics need to be Democrats. In fact, I specifically said earlier that no political party currently has a platform which might conceivably match what I think might be the best skeptical conclusions we might reach about political issues.
Great Christina is saying that we need to address more social questions because Bigfoot and UFOs aren't all that high on the priorities lists of people who are in the trenches, fighting for better city bus service or arguing against cutting public drug rehab programs. Skepticism can help those people - by ensuring their arguments are sound and their data unimpeachable - but they won't pay us any attention unless we enter their worlds and demonstrate that we can make a difference in what's important to them.
And I am saying that if we (as skeptics) strive to eliminate social inequalities and injustice, what will naturally follow are things like better science education for everyone, and less money going into the pockets of con-men. As I said, this is "bottom-up" skeptical advocacy, and it's necessarily a very long-term fight.
But advocating for (for example) better science education specifically is a losing battle when education budgets are on the chopping block nationwide because (in part) the decision-makers are mostly not minorities while those most-harmed by education cuts are. If getting top-notch science education into U.S. schools is important to you, then education equality should be important to you, which means that institutional racism should be important to you, and it should be clear that these issues aren't going to be efficiently repaired in that order, so the goal should be to fix them the other way around. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Rationalism in a world of unfairness
