Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Why is Michael Shermer disliked around here?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Philo
New Member

40 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2017 :  15:55:23  Show Profile Send Philo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have noticed that Michael Shermer is pretty disliked around here. Could anyone please elaborate on why?

Btw, I'm not a huge fan of him either, but I wouldn't say I dislike him. He is ok, but there are other big-name skeptics out there who are much sharper thinkers IMO.

He sometimes makes sloppy arguments, which leads to false conclusions. I recall him in a video being asked how many skeptics there are, and equated the number of skeptics with the number of atheists in the USA (which based on the number I suppose was really based on the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans, not necessarily atheists), and came to the conclusion that there are 60 million skeptics in the USA. Which is wrong because the world is full of atheists who are not skeptics. This is the kind of sloppy thinking that the head of a major skeptical organization really should not do.

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2017 :  18:40:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
like most atheists, he is a rapist.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25829 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2017 :  21:08:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Shermer is a hardcore libertarian, which skeptics should avoid because libertarianism is based on false premises and has been demonstrated to not function in the real world. But he (and several other prominent skeptics, like Penn Jilette) sticks to it like dogma.

In general, he's not a terribly good skeptic when he's got a favored hypothesis. He doesn't respond to challenges with reasoned arguments, or by changing his mind. He rationalizes criticism away, instead.

He's also a shameless misogynist, which should also be rare among skeptics, but sadly isn't. And yes, he's been accused of plying women with alcohol and then raping them.

Hey, wait: you were involved in the last thread about him, ten months ago, Philo.

The bottom line then is still true today: he's not a very good "thought leader" for skeptics, and skeptics don't need him.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2017 :  05:32:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

And yes, he's been accused of plying women with alcohol and then raping them.



No, he DEFINTIELY raped people. PZ myers confirmed it. That's why Shermer is in Jail right now.... right?

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25829 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2017 :  05:54:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

No, he DEFINTIELY raped people. PZ myers confirmed it.
Did he? I'll need a citation on that.
That's why Shermer is in Jail right now.... right?
Perhaps on your planet, all rapists go to jail. That doesn't happen here on Earth.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2017 :  09:53:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
sure, pz meyers showed the email on his blog, she said he did it so he must have done it.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25829 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2017 :  11:26:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

sure, pz meyers showed the email on his blog...
You must be using a different definition of the word "confirmed" than I (or PZ Myers) use.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9645 Posts

Posted - 01/23/2017 :  10:15:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

like most atheists, he is a rapist.

Yup. And just like Catholic Priests, most Christians are paedophiles.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 02/06/2017 :  23:54:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by On fire for Christ

like most atheists, he is a rapist.

Yup. And just like Catholic Priests, most Christians are paedophiles.



Most Christians? Doesn't follow. Most Catholics? Sure.

Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1390 Posts

Posted - 02/07/2017 :  00:35:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Catholics are a sect of Christianity. Catholic = Christian
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 02/07/2017 :  01:22:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
subset

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25829 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2017 :  20:27:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yet another reason to distrust anything Shermer says about skepticism. The article is about an attempt to hoax a gender studies journal into publishing stupidity, but instead the instigators just wound up publishing their nonsense for free in a third-rate pay-to-publish rag. They still considered that to be damning of the whole field of gender studies, though, which does nothing but demonstrate how deep their unexamined confirmation bias goes.

Along with Shermer, the following other people need to be put on the "don't believe the alleged skepticism issuing from this alleged skeptic" list:
  • Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay (authors of the hoax article)
  • Dave Rubin
  • Richard Dawkins
  • Steve McGraw
  • Abe Lovelace
  • Whoever "Fringe Moderate" is
Even the Sokal hoax didn't demonstrate the bogosity of the entire field of post-modernism, but the above people seem to take a single publication in a near-zero-reference journal as an indictment of all gender studies. So along with confirmation bias, they're guilty of generalizing from a sample size of one, and the whole thing is basically an argument from authority.

Remember, at least two of the above people have no problems with the label "thought leader." Do we want these walking, talking bad examples of skepticism to be considered the "thought leaders" of this movement?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2017 :  20:56:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think most rational people are just completely tired of this gender nonsense.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 05/20/2017 21:29:13
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25829 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2017 :  21:04:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

I think most rational people are just completely tired of this gender nonsense.
All your "friends" left you alone again while you were drunk, didn't they?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1249 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2017 :  21:29:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by On fire for Christ

I think most rational people are just completely tired of this gender nonsense.
All your "friends" left you alone again while you were drunk, didn't they?


I'm just sick of the tribalism, whereby you have to be some kind of conservative shitlord or you're a libtard SJW. When the word "justice" becomes a pejorative, something is seriously wrong in society.

I just read the article. Did Dawkins actually do anything besides receive tweets?

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 05/20/2017 21:30:09
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25829 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2017 :  23:21:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

I'm just sick of the tribalism, whereby you have to be some kind of conservative shitlord or you're a libtard SJW. When the word "justice" becomes a pejorative, something is seriously wrong in society.
Well, it isn't the liberals who made "justice" a pejorative. When two groups argue, one of them can be wrong, you know. This is not a case of both-sides-do-itism.
I just read the article. Did Dawkins actually do anything besides receive tweets?
Oh, he sent one. And then a couple more.

I think the article in Skeptic leaves a huge open hole: the authors mention the "blind review" process used by Cogent Social Science, but they utterly fail to ask the question of whether or not any of their reviewers were experts in the fields relevant to their paper. They claim it to be a horrible article for gender studies that should never have been accepted for publication, but what if the reviewers were experts in "Sport, Leisure & Tourism" or maybe "Politics & International Relations" or even "Architecture & Planning" (three categories featured on the journal's home page). Does the journal guarantee relevant peer review? The authors don't seem to even consider that question. For all we know, the one reviewer who seems to have actually read the hoax article had an MBA and a case of unbridled misandry.

Even more damning of the Skeptic magazine editors: the authors boldly plagiarized Cogent Social Science's description of itself. From the Skeptic article:
The Pay-to-Publish, Open-Access Journal Problem

Cogent Social Sciences is a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies. Connect your research with a global audience for maximum readership and impact.
From the Cogent Social Science web site:
Cogent Social Sciences is a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies. Connect your research with a global audience for maximum readership and impact.
Skeptic should at least have footnoted that, if not quoted it. They even included the same typos!

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.66 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000