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
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2017 :  10:18:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
More details:
The first journal that Bognossian and Lindsay submitted their hoax paper to, and that rejected it, was NORMA: The International Journal for Masculinity Studies. This journal doesn’t even hit the top 115 journals in Gender Studies. So, what happened here was that they submitted a hoax paper to an unranked journal, which summarily rejected it. They then received an auto-generated response directing them to a pay-to-publish vanity journal. They submitted the paper there, and it was published. From this chain of events they conclude that the entire field of Gender Studies is “crippled academically”. This tells us very little about Gender Studies, but an awful lot about the perpetrators of this “hoax”.... and those who tout it as a take down of an entire field.
And we can add Jerry Coyne to the list of people who accepted the Skeptic article unskeptically.

- 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
1255 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  00:28:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Who cares what Dawkins thinks about social issues though, really.

He HAS to be sexist and racist because he's the most privileged person ever, for a start he's an elderly white, educated, heterosexual male, right?
He sits everyday, LITERALLY in an Ivory tower in Oxford, ivory - plucked from elephants howling faces - and gives his old white male opinions on a world that is changing faster than he can keep up with. He is a shitlord and his twitter account is worse than the holocaust.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  05:00:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Who cares what Dawkins thinks about social issues though, really.
A lot of asshats do, unfortunately.
He HAS to be sexist and racist because he's the most privileged person ever, for a start he's an elderly white, educated, heterosexual male, right?
No, he says a lot of racist and sexist crap. That he does so because of his unexamined privilege is the most probably hypothesis.
He sits everyday, LITERALLY in an Ivory tower in Oxford, ivory - plucked from elephants howling faces - and gives his old white male opinions on a world that is changing faster than he can keep up with. He is a shitlord and his twitter account is worse than the holocaust.
You go ahead and keep inventing straw SJWs to whine about. Sad that you have nothing better to do.

- 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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  05:13:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh, and I missed the disaster that is Shermer's introduction to the report of the "hoax":
Every once in awhile [sic] it is necessary and desirable to expose extreme ideologies for what they are by carrying out their arguments and rhetoric to their logical and absurd conclusion [sic], which is why we are proud to publish this expose [sic] of a hoaxed article published in a peer-reviewed article [sic] today. It’s [sic] ramifications are unknown but one hopes it will help reign [sic] in extremism in this and related areas.
That's right: six errors in two sentences.

- 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

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  08:00:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's 2017 and I still don't understand why people think that, because we're skeptics, we support everyone who claims the same, no questions asked. It's the opposite of what skepticism is supposed to be.
Good to know about Shermer. I did notice he went away from some circles... and fuck Dawkins, really. I'll take the good he's written, sans the bad. Cheers.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  08:14:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
More on scam publishing: Gender Studies “Hoax” Shockingly Reveals Scammy Vanity Journals Will Publish Nonsense.

- 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

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13377 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  08:25:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
“PAGING DR. FRAUD”: THE FAKE PUBLISHERS THAT ARE RUINING SCIENCE
The shift was largely welcomed, but as the number of O.A. journals grew, the potential for abuse became evident. By midway through the decade, researchers were assaulted by spam from journals of questionable legitimacy asking them to submit a paper or to be an editor, even in areas of research where they had no expertise. In exchange for a hefty fee, these journals—with names such as Journal of Clinical Toxicology and Enzyme Engineering—offered quick peer review, which often meant no review whatsoever. “They were journals I’d never heard of,” Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, said. “Often they were based in West Africa or South Asia, with titles close to existing ones, and filled with grammatical errors. Basically, they were just pay-to-publish operations.” The barrier to entry couldn’t be lower, he said. “You just need a Web site and a journal title, and you can be in business in a day.”


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  11:16:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Steven Pinker uncritically retweeted the alleged hoax



And Blake Stacey contrasts these "hoaxers" with their hero, Alan Sokal (my bold):
...Sokal’s method was to read actual papers, find quotations and string them together. He was not a Markov bot! Sokal writes,
In fact, the article is structured around the silliest quotations I could find about mathematics and physics (and the philosophy of mathematics and physics) from some of the most prominent French and American intellectuals; my only contribution was to invent a nonsensical argument linking these quotations together and praising them.
Which was exactly the point, and what he really wanted to talk about: Not the single failure on the part of one “rather marginal journal,” but the widespread examples of famous (or at least academic-famous) people taking about important questions with apparently no feedback or quality control. Sokal argues at length that philosophical, cultural and sociological studies of science are good things we should be doing; his beef is that people were doing these important things badly.

If you subtract out the shoddy publication practices of
Social Text, you still have real substance to discuss—in fact, it’s the more important substance. Were all of the examples that Sokal found really as bad as they first appeared? There’s the possibility of a productive conversation there. If you subtract out the shoddy publication practices of Cogent Social Sciences, you’re left with nothing, because there’s no actual work behind Boghossian and Lindsay’s stunt. Peel back the surface, and underneath, there’s just no there there.

Far from being the “son of Sokal” event that Boghossian, Lindsay, Shermer and fans all salivate for, this sorry excuse for a scandal fails to emulate the one meaningful aspect of what Sokal did.




Oh, boy. It seems that climate-change deniers are all in a tizzy because the "hoax" paper claimed that penises cause climate change. Some are actually claiming that because the paper was accepted for publication, that liberals believe penises cause climate change. For examples, Breitbart, "Trump Army," other alt-right news aggregators and the biggest denial site Watts Up with That? Of course, Shermer was a climate-change denialist from way back, but thanks a ton, Boghossian and Lindsay, for making that battle more difficult.



Should have guessed he'd be all for it: add Sam Harris to the list.

- 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

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  15:06:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Steven Pinker uncritically retweeted the alleged hoax

So very disappointed in Pinker... but not surprised.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1414 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  16:10:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's sad to see people who have done good works fall for the paranoid delusion that "SJWs and feminists are trying to make me feel guilty for being a privileged male!" Pathetic.



Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 05/22/2017 16:11:15
Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  16:25:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

It's sad to see people who have done good works fall for the paranoid delusion that "SJWs and feminists are trying to make me feel guilty for being a privileged male!" Pathetic.

It actually worries me, because it's so prevalent... :-/

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2017 :  19:21:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

It's sad to see people who have done good works fall for the paranoid delusion that "SJWs and feminists are trying to make me feel guilty for being a privileged male!" Pathetic.
That may be the often-spoken complaint, but the underlying attitude is more along the lines of "I used to be able to make fun of and/or dominate women and people of color, but now they're getting uppity and need to be put back in their place(s)." And then they get upset when their old jokes and demands of subservience don't result in people rolling over for them. And then they project their own delicate feelings by calling the SJWs "special snowflakes."

The racists and misogynists are scared to death that they'll be treated like they've treated others. They can't tolerate being treated equally to the people they used to run roughshod over. Because they mistakenly think social situations are zero-sum games, then other people's gains must be losses for them.

- 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
1255 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2017 :  08:38:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
it's sad when people like old people Dave try to fit in with the edgy crowd by being liberal to a fault and not seeing any kind of grey area.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2017 :  09:02:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

it's sad when people like old people Dave try to fit in with the edgy crowd by being liberal to a fault and not seeing any kind of grey area.
There's a gray area between treating people fairly and being an asshole? Do tell.

- 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
1255 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2017 :  09:07:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave I had a nasty response for you, but I deleted it because Jesus would have deleted it.

Anyway, I really think that having a proportional and measured reactions to comments by public figures would find a lot more support across the spectrum, than overreactions. Usually, yes, they are insensitive, tone deaf,maybe ignorant etc, and we want to highlight that they should not be encouraging such things.
So lets respond in a proportional way, then that person might not double down, his supporters might agree.
If you turn the dial to 11, call out the lynch mobs and excommunicate someone for 1 ill-conceived twitter post, then that person will more than likely put his guard up, double, triple down, his defenders will rally, now that person is your enemy, all his followers are your enemy and then you have the same thing again, more tribalism more black and white politics. Why? because people can't take a deep breath and talk about things in an adult way.


Edited by - On fire for Christ on 05/23/2017 09:08:09
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 0.28 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000