There's a big dustup within the skeptical community of late. A large event known as Skepticon was held and the overarching theme was anti-religion. One well known commentator made the point that it seemed to be more of an Atheist event and less of a Skeptical event, and the gloves came off.
See Jeff Wagg's column here
Just for giggles, I'm going to throw my hat into the proverbial ring. While Atheism may well be one of many logical conclusions from Skepticism, it is but one of many. They aren't one and the same. Skepticism is a methodology and an approach to life and understanding. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Just because one logically leads to another doesn't mean they are one and the same. A Pro-Life rally is not automatically a Republican event, even if it is safe to say that the vast majority of attendees will be registered Republicans.
I'll freely admit that it's largely a PR thing. If I'm fighting to raise public awareness about the safety of vaccines and there's a group of Atheists loudly and proudly proclaiming that Skepticism is all about fighting religion, I know that my message will be heard and trusted by fewer people. It's that simple. Call it accomodationist, call it spineless, I don't care. I'm concerned about getting the message out and helping people learn how to reason for themselves. I'm concerned about people falling for scams that they should have seen coming a mile away. I'm concerned about people visiting Faith Healers and throwing their insulin onto the stage in the belief that they have been cured. I'm concerned about people handing over college funds to psychics who claim to be in contact with a dead husband or wife. I'm concerned about parents forgoing immunizations for fear of causing Autism in their children. I'm concerned for my young niece who spent weeks wheezing and coughing because my sister repeatedly took her to a Naturopath instead of a family doctor or allergist who would have pinned down her dairy sensitivity in days instead of years.
I realize that at least one of my aforementioned concerns deals directly with religious thought and could be theoretically remedied with a good scrubbing of religion from the planet. Here's the thing though; it ain't gonna happen. Religion is pervasive and it will stick around. Humans are stubborn and will dig in their heels when their beliefs are challenged, moreso when the beliefs are strong and closely identified with their personal identity. Read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" for a more thorough explanation of this.
If some folks are able to accept that Faith Healers are really just highly successful con artists with immunity from prosecution due to their religious status, they are one step closer to rational thinking. If people can understand the placebo effect and the impossibility of distilled water remembering vibrations from a foreign substance, they may stop spending money with a Homeopath. If people can gain understanding of cold reading and avoid falling victim to psychic fraudsters (redundant, I know), they benefit their families and themselves. These are achievable goals that we should be working on.
Pride is difficult to swallow. Sometimes we need to take a big gulp anyway.
To be VERY CLEAR. In case you are getting ready to post a scathing reply to this post, let me state my position more concisely. I do NOT think that Atheism should be ignored or swept under the rug. I do not think anybody should pretend to be religious if they are not. I suggest no dishonesty or downplaying of (anti)religious status. Just don't conflate Atheism and Skepticism in a way that will confuse those who don't understand the nuance. If you are going to hold an Anti-Homeopathy conference, great. Call it that and I'll be there. Don't call it a "Skeptical" conference. If you are going to have an Anti-Anti-Vax conference, great. I'll be there too. Don't call it a "Skeptical" conference. If you are planning to host an Atheism conference, I'll be there too. Just don't call it Skepticism. Skepticism is much more than just one of its logical conclusions.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
We Don't Need the Pity of Morons
Enraged is the only emotion I can feel when a blithering, knuckle dragging mouth breather like Dean Radin writes a self contradictory column, holds it out as a solid argument, then offers up pity for those who don't buy into his BS. Take your pity sir and shove it far enough in until you can taste it.
1 Example:
Compassion for Skeptics
Just to name 1 jawdroppingly obvious logical fallacy, he completely misses and misunderstands the whole point of James Randi's million dollar prize. Let me explain, and if you are reading this Mr. Radin, read slowly and a few times so that you can put the words together into coherent thoughts before responding with another one of your pathetic straw men.
James Randi FREELY ADMITS that his $1 million prize is a publicity stunt that is not meant to be taken as scientific proof of anything at all. Scientific proof would require replicability, which the prize stunt does not require. Theoretically, you could go in, win the prize on random chance luck, then fail miserably at any sort of replicability thereby failing to prove your hypotheses to the satisfaction of scientists. You'd still get the money, the publicity, and the bragging rights that come with it.
You argue that Mr. Randi freely admits that scientific proof would require replicability, therefore his prize must also. You obviously have not looked into the prize rules, because the standards are not the same as what science would require, yet you somehow twist and turn the words so it seems as if the JREF is requiring far more than it is. The JREF prize asks for a single performance under agreed upon conditions that would eliminate the possibility of chicanery. This isn't science. It's a stunt to raise awareness about how reliable your claims are. Your explanations of why you won't engage in the test are very telling indeed.
Your entire column totalling up the cost of a ridiculously in-depth study of the paranormal (conveniently totalling more than $1 million!) is a laughably silly red herring as well. The JREF does not require anything even remotely close to the kind of proof you have argued would be necessary. In fact, if you WERE to look into the actual rules, you would see that it very clearly states that you and the JREF would come up with an agreed upon result that would prove your contentions under controlled settings. If you meet that result, you win.
You are correct that winning the JREF prize will not prove anything scientifically. It's telling though that you similarly refuse to follow up your questionable studies under controlled settings with a variety of experts, including Skeptics. You seem to crave scientific acceptance above money, so why not actually remove doubt?
Skeptics wait for proof. You haven't provided it to an acceptable degree. We're asking that you provide it. It's not rocket science here. Just do it again under settings that eliminate the possibility of cheating or bias. We're not saying you are wrong! We are saying that you haven't provided acceptable proof to support YOUR CLAIMS! We didn't make a claim. We simply didn't accept yours based on the fact that your methods aren't transparent or convincing.
Understand that history has shown that when true scientific standards are required, any "proof" of paranormal activity disappears. It has happened each and every time, and logic would lead us to believe that it would similarly happen if your studies were exposed to rigorous standards. Prove us wrong. Go ahead, I dare you.
1 Example:
Compassion for Skeptics
Just to name 1 jawdroppingly obvious logical fallacy, he completely misses and misunderstands the whole point of James Randi's million dollar prize. Let me explain, and if you are reading this Mr. Radin, read slowly and a few times so that you can put the words together into coherent thoughts before responding with another one of your pathetic straw men.
James Randi FREELY ADMITS that his $1 million prize is a publicity stunt that is not meant to be taken as scientific proof of anything at all. Scientific proof would require replicability, which the prize stunt does not require. Theoretically, you could go in, win the prize on random chance luck, then fail miserably at any sort of replicability thereby failing to prove your hypotheses to the satisfaction of scientists. You'd still get the money, the publicity, and the bragging rights that come with it.
You argue that Mr. Randi freely admits that scientific proof would require replicability, therefore his prize must also. You obviously have not looked into the prize rules, because the standards are not the same as what science would require, yet you somehow twist and turn the words so it seems as if the JREF is requiring far more than it is. The JREF prize asks for a single performance under agreed upon conditions that would eliminate the possibility of chicanery. This isn't science. It's a stunt to raise awareness about how reliable your claims are. Your explanations of why you won't engage in the test are very telling indeed.
Your entire column totalling up the cost of a ridiculously in-depth study of the paranormal (conveniently totalling more than $1 million!) is a laughably silly red herring as well. The JREF does not require anything even remotely close to the kind of proof you have argued would be necessary. In fact, if you WERE to look into the actual rules, you would see that it very clearly states that you and the JREF would come up with an agreed upon result that would prove your contentions under controlled settings. If you meet that result, you win.
You are correct that winning the JREF prize will not prove anything scientifically. It's telling though that you similarly refuse to follow up your questionable studies under controlled settings with a variety of experts, including Skeptics. You seem to crave scientific acceptance above money, so why not actually remove doubt?
Skeptics wait for proof. You haven't provided it to an acceptable degree. We're asking that you provide it. It's not rocket science here. Just do it again under settings that eliminate the possibility of cheating or bias. We're not saying you are wrong! We are saying that you haven't provided acceptable proof to support YOUR CLAIMS! We didn't make a claim. We simply didn't accept yours based on the fact that your methods aren't transparent or convincing.
Understand that history has shown that when true scientific standards are required, any "proof" of paranormal activity disappears. It has happened each and every time, and logic would lead us to believe that it would similarly happen if your studies were exposed to rigorous standards. Prove us wrong. Go ahead, I dare you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)