|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2013 : 23:44:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Actually, counting hits and misses and looking at the results is a scientific investigation. Even if almost anyone can do it. Even the basic understanding of human behaviour is scientific. You can't debunk a psychic on a hunch. There are things that must be looked for. Predicted, if you will, based on prior knowledge of how psychics do their thing. And that's scientific. |
There's another strawman buried in there, and you know it. The lack of a scientific investigation does not mean the debunkings of these mediums was based on hunches. Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" is for use outside of scientific testing, because spotting confirmation bias is not, itself, scientific.
Be honest with yourself, Kil. I've yet to see anyone try to objectively count hits and misses without having stated their preferred conclusion and focusing on just that one thing. The alleged psychics focus on their alleged successes, while the skeptics rattle off a litany of failures with a handful of "well, that could count as a hit, we'll give him half credit for that" thrown in to provide an appearance of impartiality. The idea that there's anything scientific about this sort of obvious mockery of the mediums is itself ridiculous.
I once set out to analyze Edgar Cayce's "readings" that are allegedly about "psoriasis," because there's a quack chiropractor who published a "diet" based on those readings and claims success rates with psoriasis that are beyond belief. I began by looking at the two-dozen or so readings which were specifically alleged to be about psoriasis, and then did some keyword searching to see if I could find more that offered up the same symptoms but a different treatment, or a different "diagnosis" with the same treatment, all in order to try to build an impartial picture of what Cayce said about which conditions, because - to be fair - he would only rarely give names to the diseases he "read," he was focused on the set of symptoms and the "treatment" for them.
After downloading all 15,000+ readings and writing custom software to help cull that down to a more-manageable list of "pertinent" readings (Cayce sometimes annoyingly would start a reading off with a description of Atlantis and only after several paragraphs go into something medical, and because the quack claimed that Cayce said that psoriasis is due to "Leaky Gut Syndrome," I needed to avoid excluding anything that referenced - even tangentially - the whole gastrointestinal tract or skin), I gave it up. Not due to the fact that there would still be around a thousand readings that I'd have to patiently read and categorize (you know I'm too tenacious to let a little thing like that stop me), but because I quickly realized that it was going to be impossible for me to objectively do the categorization and weighting necessary to come to any conclusions about what, exactly, Cayce "prescribed" for psoriasis.
My own confirmation bias was far too strong. I wanted to show that Cayce's suggestions for conditions that sounded like psoriasis (he never personally used the word, if I remember correctly) were not targeted at "healing the gut" as claimed, and/or that the symptoms Cayce linked to gut problems were similarly all over the map, and just a few dozen chronologically-ordered readings into my endeavor, that's exactly what I found.
My inner critic kicked in, suggesting that maybe I was reading the readings "incorrectly," or that maybe a consistent pattern would only emerge after painfully examining the 500th reading instead of the 50th. But more worrisome was the idea that I'd somehow written my confirmation bias into my software, in that I might have been missing just the right combination of keywords or spelling that could vindicate both Cayce and the chiropractor.
It quickly became clear that these problems were insurmountable without laying out precise and objective categorizing criteria (if that's even possible) and then examining every single reading, a twenty-plus year-long project for an individual with an unrelated full-time job. I may be tenacious, but not that tenacious. So I settled for the unscientific skeptical response: let the claimants present their evidence, and poke a zillion holes in it: "red spots with black centers doesn't sound like any form of psoriasis ever diagnosed," for example.| The science doesn't have to be complicated or difficult to do. |
No, it doesn't. It just has to be scientific. Pointing out logical fallacies, mistaken observations or even outright lies about evidence isn't science, it's criticism. And that's the best that most people who are cheerfully welcomed into the skeptic movement by its leaders can hope to attain. The people who actually perform scientific tests of fringe claims (Loxton's amateurs) are a teensy weensy percentage of the whole. At last year's TAM, they were even a minority of the speakers. |
- 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 - 02/12/2013 : 00:37:37 [Permalink]
|
I never claimed that most skeptics do the kind of experimentation it takes to debunk a claim. I can direct you to plenty of IIG Investigations if you are interested. There are people doing it. I'd be one of them if I were willing to drive across town on Sunday morning to the CFI in Hollywood. I've most certainly been invited to join. Brian Hart, who leads the group, was in chat a couple weeks ago as well. He tried to shame me into it because he drives there from a neighboring city. But hey... Sunday morning? I guess I'm lazy.
But I have attended mildly controlled preliminary attempts at the prize. The protocols were agreed to by both all parties. Had the person passed the preliminary test, a much more rigidly controlled test would have been done, under conditions agreed to by the person making the claim. If you think this stuff doesn't go on enough for a community to embrace sci methods, you're wrong. Do I do it? No. I did personally foil a psychic by refusing to answer her questions. She crashed and burned. But there were no protocols set up so no. Not scientific enough to count as a true investigation. I guessed what the outcome would be if I didn't play along, and I was correct. But I didn't force her to get almost everything wrong. She was on her own on that score. I know how a cold reading works, and I supplied as little information for her to use as I could.
Anyhow, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Yes. It's true that most of us don't do the actual testing. We have already been over that.
IIG Nick Nelson Preliminary Test
Anita Ikonen is tested by the IIG (Independent Investigations Group)
I can also link you up to the heavy stuff done by Ray Hyman or Joe Nickell. Let me know if you're interested. |
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 - 02/12/2013 : 05:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I guessed what the outcome would be if I didn't play along, and I was correct. |
My point is that you did not guess, you came to your position through a critical, logical examination of the available evidence regarding psychics in general. It's a skeptical position, if not a scientifically skeptical position. |
- 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 - 02/12/2013 : 09:20:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
I guessed what the outcome would be if I didn't play along, and I was correct. |
My point is that you did not guess, you came to your position through a critical, logical examination of the available evidence regarding psychics in general. It's a skeptical position, if not a scientifically skeptical position.
|
Well... I don't think I lead her. My bias not withstanding. And even if I had that would only mean that she picks up on cues and there is nothing psychic about her abilities. I was open enough to allow her to dazzle me with her psychic abilities. I certainly didn't stop her from telling me something she couldn't have known in any other way. And I would like to think that if she had done that, I would have been open enough to at least offer her the opportunity to be tested under controlled conditions. I mean, I know people who do that. But again, it wasn't some kind of an official test that meant anything other than it was useful as an anecdote in my Evil Skeptic essay.
But to your point, it was a skeptical position that I took. I agree. But it was based on other peoples scientific research which gave me a reason to be skeptical. So I still don't get what your point is. I wouldn't have had any bias if I was completely unaware of the science that had been done. But then, I'd have had to have lived in a vacuum for that to happen. So it was a scientifically skeptical. I was informally replicating what others had done in more controlled experiments.
If you are suggesting that knowledge of sci method isn't required to debunk her claim, I don't agree. Even with the use of the Baloney Detection Kit the closest I could have come is that my skeptical alarms would have gone off. (And in fact, that was the case.) But that doesn't beat the double blind testing that does go on. It was science that informed for my skepticism.
And of course, real double-blind testing does go 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2013 : 09:53:07 [Permalink]
|
Reading other people's scientifically skeptical work isn't itself being scientifically skeptical. You informally looked at some second-hand evidence, applied logic and reason, and came to the tentative conclusion that generally, self-proclaimed psychics will probably fail if you keep quiet.
That's not guessing, or having a hunch. That's skepticism, but not scientific skepticism.
There are lots of things that are based on science without being scientific. Broadly speaking, taking the results of scientific experimentation and finding practical applications for them is called "technology." Nobody goes around calling our modern electronic gadgets "scientific technology."
I don't enjoy going all argumentum ad Webster's, but in "scientific skepticism," the adjective "scientific" doesn't mean "based on science" or "informed by science," it means "in a science-like fashion," characterized by the systematic attempts to control tests of claims so that just a single variable is examined, and sources of bias or error eliminated.
So again, what you did was skeptical, but had none of the hallmarks of science and so can't be considered to be scientifically skeptical.Originally posted by Kil
And of course, real double-blind testing does go on. |
Yes, but not by you or the vast majority of other people advocating for scientific skepticism. The majority of people who think they're in the movement are unscientific skeptics who favor scientific skepticism without having actually done any, yet when we hear "the skepticism movement," you want everyone to think "the scientific 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
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2013 : 12:17:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Reading other people's scientifically skeptical work isn't itself being scientifically skeptical. You informally looked at some second-hand evidence, applied logic and reason, and came to the tentative conclusion that generally, self-proclaimed psychics will probably fail if you keep quiet.
That's not guessing, or having a hunch. That's skepticism, but not scientific skepticism. |
The source of the information comes from testing. So I disagree that just because we aren't all scientists running experiments, that it's not scientific skepticism. Part of the deal is that we advocate for science.
It's ridiculous to say that we should all be testing or we can't call ourselves scientific skeptics.
And yeah. When someone is dissing science online, which happens often, it's not at all uncommon for us to point out that the person is using a product science made possible.
What you are correct about is that what I did was to apply skepticism. But again, it was informed by science. Like it or not.
Scientific skepticism
| Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking. |
| By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise. In practice this becomes difficult because of the amount of knowledge now possessed by science, and so an ability to balance critical thinking with an appreciation for consensus amongst the most relevant scientists becomes vital. |
This is an important point. We default to the consensus among experts in different fields of science. The default position for a lay skeptic to take is very much supported by consensus science. |
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 - 02/13/2013 : 14:02:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The source of the information comes from testing. So I disagree that just because we aren't all scientists running experiments, that it's not scientific skepticism. |
Nobody calls an iPhone a scientific device, even though all the technology inside owes its existence to science.| Part of the deal is that we advocate for science. |
And "advocacy for science" isn't in any common definiton of "scientific."| It's ridiculous to say that we should all be testing or we can't call ourselves scientific skeptics. |
It's ridiculous to insist that the "skepticism movement" should be thought of synonymously with scientific skepticism when the vast majority of the skepticism that its members do is not scientific skepticism. "Informed by science," yes, but not "scientific." |
- 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 - 02/13/2013 : 14:13:08 [Permalink]
|
| I added something to my post while you posted. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2013 : 14:19:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Nobody calls an iPhone a scientific device, even though all the technology inside owes its existence to science. |
Already explained and so what? When someone says that science is useless, which happens, all we have to do is point to an iPhone.
Oh. And informed by science is what makes someone a scientific skeptic. You're just trying to nit-pick a way out. |
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 - 02/13/2013 : 22:31:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I added something to my post while you posted. |
I see that now.Originally quoted by Kil
Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. |
This is what H. and I were saying. Science is essentially a sub-set of skepticism.| Already explained and so what? When someone says that science is useless, which happens, all we have to do is point to an iPhone. |
The point is that "_____ is based on or informed by science" doesn't mean that "scientific _____" is a sensible phrase. |
- 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 - 02/13/2013 : 22:40:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave. You are trying to nit-pick us out of calling ourselves scientific skeptics because you say that defaulting to the consensus in science is not scientific, and therefor only a person who is an expert in an area of science can be a scientific skeptic. And what is more, only in the area they are expert in. In every other area, they are simply skeptics. Even though science still informs their skepticism. Only when the lab coat is on are they scientific skeptics.
So even though science is the bottom line, we shouldn't call ourselves scientific skeptics.
Is that about right?
So your cause is to redefine skepticism for all of us. (With a bit of nit picking, it's not even a redefinition, right?) For Randi, for Swiss, for Loxton, for Dunning, for Lippard, for Dunlap, for Gay, for Wiseman, for Plait, for Saunders, for Tyson, for Nye, for.. Well... Almost every skeptic but the few who you closely identify with. No hubris there. Eh?
You know what? There are already religious skeptics that are not exactly scientific skeptics, but there is some overlap. Lots of people wear both hats. But instead of being good neighbors, cousins if you will, you want us to just drop sci and religious and all be called skeptics. No qualifier. (I know I know. But the skeptical movement is strongly identified with sci skepticism.)
And unless I'm mistaken, the reason for that is to fit a social agenda in there and not necessarily default to science. You may correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure you will.
But see. What if you are a religious skeptic, or at least once were, and now you are just a skeptic and believe that vaccination causes autism? You're still a skeptic. You are, after all, skeptical of religion. Like Bill Maher. He was given an award by the Dawkins Foundation while all the sci skeptics were gagging on a spoon over it. I think you were gagging on the same spoon, Dave. But you see no reason why we shouldn't all be labeled as just one thing and be happy about it. Because it makes one of the tents larger. (There is the freethinking tent that pretty much covers us all.)
Of course, it works both ways. It's not like the religious skeptics are thrilled about the NCSE's strategic position on religion. Accommodationists!
So even if the tent gets larger, these battles will still go on. The big difference is we will not be as well defined as we are now. So what's the point?
It's that social agenda thing, right?
And another thing. While I'll grant you that in the area of sexism, the skeptical, atheist and freethinking communities needs some work, why do you think we can do as well or better than the feminist community can at dealing with feminism? Don't they have the skill set to call bullshit where they see it with regard to feminism? It's another hat to put on. Why should we be fused with that community too, other than that most of us agree with them? We have always said that skepticism and critical thinking can be applied in other areas, and that's why it's important to learn those skills. But to become those other areas? If people want to put their energies into feminism, fine by me. But are we supposed to define skeptics as feminists? Skeptics as gay activists? Civil rights activists of all stripes as skeptics? Progressive politics as a skeptical movement? Where does it end? Or is that the point? Scope isn't an issue because as skeptics we should have unlimited scope?
So what happens to the core mission? Science. What happens when we are just dismissed as a bunch of progressives when we are trying to get Washington to focus on a particular scientific issue? Do we really want moderate conservatives writing off skeptics by giving them that ammunition or cause them to think that when we are pushing science, it must be a progressive thing and not simply advocacy for science? Why should we put ourselves in the position of being dismissed by anyone on those grounds? That was exactly the criticism I threw at Shermer's advocacy of libertarianism. And really, other than the fact that most of us are liberals, I don't see the difference. We will hurt ourselves if we overtly align ourselves and our movement that ultimately advocates for science if we are identified first with having a political agenda that isn't about science. Tell me how that won't happen? It was a legitamate critcism that I made about Shermer, and it's legitimate now too. And I'm a progressive. There is a reason for the focus to be on science.
If science is not relevant to some new skeptic, I don't care. Let 'em go do something else. We have never been very big in numbers. And we probably never will be. The atheist movement will always be larger. We are advocating for science. That's what we do. We are the non academic part of the scientific community. And we aren't going to disappear because that's where our focus is. We don't have to appeal to everyone's peeve.
|
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 - 02/14/2013 : 05:17:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave. You are trying to nit-pick us out of calling ourselves scientific skeptics... |
No, I'm trying to convince you that thinking "scientific skepticism" when one hears "skepticism movement" is inaccurate.
I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that the skepticism movement's core advocacy is not something that itself is a position that was arrived at through the use of scientific skepticism.
I'm trying to get you to offer me sound reasons why that mission souldn't be expanded to include a few more positions which also weren't derived through scientific skepticism, but which can be reached through "lay" skepticism.| So your cause is to redefine skepticism for all of us. |
No, I'm actually arguing against a conflation of definitions.| But the skeptical movement is strongly identified with sci skepticism. |
And I'm saying that that identification is inaccurate. If you're concerned with finding the truth, that inaccuracy should concern you.| And unless I'm mistaken, the reason for that is to fit a social agenda in there and not necessarily default to science. |
Movement skepticism is already about a non-scientific social agenda. Nobody can arrive at "we should be advocates for science" through the use of science.| And another thing. While I'll grant you that in the area of sexism, the skeptical, atheist and freethinking communities needs some work, why do you think we can do as well or better than the feminist community can at dealing with feminism? |
I think the skepticism movement is actively losing people because we're not doing enough with regard to sexism, racism, etc.| Don't they have the skill set to call bullshit where they see it with regard to feminism? |
Sure, but they won't be joining the skepticism movement while this crap is tolerated within it.| It's another hat to put on. Why should we be fused with that community too, other than that most of us agree with them? We have always said that skepticism and critical thinking can be applied in other areas, and that's why it's important to learn those skills. But to become those other areas? If people want to put their energies into feminism, fine by me. But are we supposed to define skeptics as feminists? Skeptics as gay activists? Civil rights activists of all stripes as skeptics? Progressive politics as a skeptical movement? Where does it end? Or is that the point? Scope isn't an issue because as skeptics we should have unlimited scope? |
If "consumers can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism" is a part of the core mission of the skeptic movement, why isn't "women can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism" or "people of color can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism" or "QUILTBAGs can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism?"| So what happens to the core mission? Science. |
Nothing, why would anything happen to it? It would remain central.| What happens when we are just dismissed as a bunch of progressives when we are trying to get Washington to focus on a particular scientific issue? Do we really want moderate conservatives writing off skeptics by giving them that ammunition or cause them to think that when we are pushing science, it must be a progressive thing and not simply advocacy for science? Why should we put ourselves in the position of being dismissed by anyone on those grounds? |
They already do dismiss us on exactly that basis.| That was exactly the criticism I threw at Shermer's advocacy of libertarianism. And really, other than the fact that most of us are liberals, I don't see the difference. We will hurt ourselves if we overtly align ourselves and our movement that ultimately advocates for science if we are identified first with having a political agenda that isn't about science. |
Who is asking for liberal politics to eclipse the science-based mission of the movement?
If we don't show how scientific skepticism is relevant to people who are primarily feminists and other social-justice activists, then they will think it is irrelevant.| There is a reason for the focus to be on science. |
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.| If science is not relevant to some new skeptic, I don't care. Let 'em go do something else. We have never been very big in numbers. And we probably never will be. The atheist movement will always be larger. We are advocating for science. That's what we do. We are the non academic part of the scientific community. And we aren't going to disappear because that's where our focus is. We don't have to appeal to everyone's peeve. |
If you think social justice is merely a "peeve," then you're dooming the skeptic movement to ever-higher proportions of assholes within it as people who care about social justice (a growing population) see the skeptic movement as either irrelevant or harmful. |
- 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 - 02/14/2013 : 08:31:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
If you think social justice is merely a "peeve," then you're dooming the skeptic movement to ever-higher proportions of assholes within it as people who care about social justice (a growing population) see the skeptic movement as either irrelevant or harmful. |
I said, the communities need work in that area. It doesn't follow that we should expand our mission to take up progressive causes. There are already groups that do that. And those groups have my support. And your dire warning that if we don't expand to also be a social movement or we will lose people is bunk. What we do need to do is clean up our act. Not expanding our mission is not saying that we don't need to root the sexism out of our communities.
And speaking of numbers, do you have any idea of how much Myers blog has lost readership, by the way? It's almost in freefall.
More later.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 10:09:29 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
No, I'm trying to convince you that thinking "scientific skepticism" when one hears "skepticism movement" is inaccurate. |
Do we sometimes have to explain ourselves to outsiders? Yes. But people inside the movement pretty much agree that “scientific skepticism” is what the movement is about. At least that’s my experience.
Dave:
I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that the skepticism movement's core advocacy is not something that itself is a position that was arrived at through the use of scientific skepticism. |
No. The core is science advocacy. It’s not necessary for all of us to be scientists. And it’s not even a logical suggestion that our core advocacy must be arrived at through experimentation to be valid. Scientific advocacy is not a fringe claim. It’s not even a claim! It’s what we do.
Dave:
I'm trying to get you to offer me sound reasons why that mission souldn't be expanded to include a few more positions which also weren't derived through scientific skepticism, but which can be reached through "lay" skepticism. |
I thought I had. And look. Anyone can be skeptical about anything. I’m not stopping anyone from challenging anything they want to. But as a movement, we base our conclusions on a scientific consensus. I said before, if you can provide scientific justification to support whatever it is that you are interested in, go for it. Any lay skeptic can do that. Most of us are lay skeptics. But we still turn to science for the lowdown.
Dave:
No, I'm actually arguing against a conflation of definitions. |
So am I.
Dave:
And I'm saying that that identification is inaccurate. If you're concerned with finding the truth, that inaccuracy should concern you. |
But I find that our identification is accurate.
Dave:
Movement skepticism is already about a non-scientific social agenda. Nobody can arrive at "we should be advocates for science" through the use of science. |
Promoting science is a scientific agenda. And again, it’s not logical to suggest that science advocacy must be scientifically testable.
Dave:
I think the skepticism movement is actively losing people because we're not doing enough with regard to sexism, racism, etc. |
And I think we should clean up our act because of that. We can do that without changing scope.
Dave:
Sure, but they won't be joining the skepticism movement while this crap is tolerated within it. |
Then we should clean up our act. We can do that without changing scope.
Dave:
If "consumers can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism" is a part of the core mission of the skeptic movement, why isn't "women can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism" or "people of color can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism" or "QUILTBAGs can be protected through the use of scientific skepticism?" |
There is all kinds of consumer protection that different groups address. But if there is a bogus claim that can be tested with regard to these other issues, go for it. How many times must I say that? We also go after holocaust denial. Not exactly Bigfoot.
Dave:
They already do dismiss us on exactly that basis. |
Some do I suppose. So should we provide them with even more ammunition?
If we don't show how scientific skepticism is relevant to people who are primarily feminists and other social-justice activists, then they will think it is irrelevant.[/i]
There are many feminists in our movement. But to the bigger question. We don’t have to become another arm of their movement to demonstrate the value of critical thinking and a reliance on testable claims. And I’m sure many of them already know that. And we can wear more than one hat. After all, skepticism is a set of tools with science at the core. I apply it to politics often. I look up studies to see if some claim about economics holds any water, for example. I don’t have to insist that the skeptical movement becomes active in supporting all my concerns for me to use the tools available to me, that I learned though skepticism.
[quote]Dave:
If you think social justice is merely a "peeve," then you're dooming the skeptic movement to ever-higher proportions of assholes within it as people who care about social justice (a growing population) see the skeptic movement as either irrelevant or harmful. |
We need to clean up our act then. What we don’t need to do is become active in every area that people are concerned about. We need to keep some focus.
|
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 - 02/14/2013 : 10:11:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I said, the communities need work in that area. It doesn't follow that we should expand our mission to take up progressive causes. There are already groups that do that. And those groups have my support. And your dire warning that if we don't expand to also be a social movement or we will lose people is bunk. |
We are a already social movement. Can't be an advocate of consumer protection and not be a social activist.| What we do need to do is clean up our act. Not expanding our mission is not saying that we don't need to root the sexism out of our communities. |
I don't see how we can avoid becoming social justice advocates when cleaning up our act. The issues need to be explained to people so they'll understand why we're doing whatever it is we do to clean up and agree to pitch in or at least stay out of the way. That's advocacy.
You do understand that not one person is suggesting, for example, that big-name skeptics need to go to Washington and testify before House committees about feminism. Nobody is demanding skeptical organizations to hold feminist rallies or create feminist conferences. Nobody is suggesting that any skeptic do anything other than what skeptics are best at, just within subjects that aren't within the "traditional" skeptical realm.| And speaking of numbers, do you have any idea of how much Myers blog has lost readership, by the way? It's almost in freefall. |
Which blog (the science-only one or the one on FtB?) and why should I care? Is Myers' blog popularity supposed to be some sort of barometer for skeptics' feelings about social justice issues? Hell, Myers only came up in this discussion because you pointed to him saying something that we all think is wrong, so how is his blog popularity at all relevant? It's not like he's one of the leaders of the push for social justice within skepticism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why is There a Skeptical Movement?
