• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

is the SGU burying its head in the sand?

s_pepys

Muse
s_pepys
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
761
hi all. i have been a keen listener for a few years but recently am saddened by their reluctance to even mention the current questions about the skeptism of one of their presenters.

i think if they dont address this they will lose a lot of their listeners. i, for one, am finding it difficult to listen with credibility these days.

i know they are all friends but surely a skeptical podcast should have critical thinking at its core and no-one should be above questioning.

lxxx
 
Cleon said:
Damn them for not letting internet drama interfere with their podcast!
Click to expand...

I don't think they should discuss it on the show, but to say that it is internet drama is a bit inaccurate.

In a talk she did a few days ago, Rebecca Watson has painted evolutionary psychology as, let's say, inaccurate to be generous. She did this by misrepresenting it.

I think that if the SGU were to address that for about 2 to 5 minutes, then at least they wouldn't lose face in many people's eyes.

They address other people's errors on the show, so why not their own?
 
SGU has a forum. As much a fan of the show as I am, I didn't even know there was a topic here. I like the show the way it is, leave out the drama.
 
s_pepys said:
i think if they dont address this they will lose a lot of their listeners. i, for one, am finding it difficult to listen with credibility these days.
Click to expand...

I hit that point over a year ago. I was thinking of adding them back to my routine when she posted that Slate article making it clear that she was above learning anything from the whole experience. Sorry, we all make mistakes and skeptics should strive to learn from those mistakes.

She is no longer a skeptic, she is an evangelical, fundamentalist feminist of her own making. Not a "feminist skeptic", "skeptical feminist", "skeptic involved in feminist issues", or a "feminist interested in skeptical inquiry". Which is fine, it just isn't interesting to have such a person on a skeptical podcast. I'd rather they politely allowed a psychic to contribute than pretend that she is a skeptic.
 
Cleon said:
Damn them for not letting internet drama interfere with their podcast!
Click to expand...

i dont mean for them to add to the "drama". they talk about brights and other movements within skepticism. this one has been a bit heated to say the least.
jamy ian swiss hinted at it in his recent interview.

i would like to hear, for example, a dissection of their thinking on evo-pschology, especially rebeccas.

surely they can disagree (if they do) without any drama. thats the idea isnt it?

lxxx
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
I don't think they should discuss it on the show, but to say that it is internet drama is a bit inaccurate.

In a talk she did a few days ago, Rebecca Watson has painted evolutionary psychology as, let's say, inaccurate to be generous. She did this by misrepresenting it.

I think that if the SGU were to address that for about 2 to 5 minutes, then at least they wouldn't lose face in many people's eyes.

They address other people's errors on the show, so why not their own?
Click to expand...

PZ Myers doesn't like evolutionary psychology ergo Rebecca Watson doesn't like evolutionary psychology.
 
s_pepys said:
ive put this on the other thread. pz doesnt really address whats wrong with evo
psyc but attacks this other guys motives pretty harshly imo.

lxxx
Click to expand...

I used to read PZ occasionally but sort of tailed off over time. So, I clicked the link above to see what all the kerfuffle was about . . .

My god it is like some sort of old time religion over there. Everyone who even dares to question the grand wizard is banned. Wow.

Critical thinking has left the building!
 
I think that everybody has something they aren't rational about.

That doesn't make you a non-Skeptic on other matters.

That said, I have gotten increasingly tired of hearing her on the podcast to the point where I have missed most of the last few months.

It's not her Skeptical credentials I am complaining of, it is that she isn't very interesting.
 
s_pepys said:
hi all. i have been a keen listener for a few years but recently am saddened by their reluctance to even mention the current questions about the skeptism of one of their presenters.

i think if they dont address this they will lose a lot of their listeners. i, for one, am finding it difficult to listen with credibility these days.

i know they are all friends but surely a skeptical podcast should have critical thinking at its core and no-one should be above questioning.

lxxx
Click to expand...
Have you considered posting this on the SGU Forums instead?
 
BenBurch said:
I think that everybody has something they aren't rational about.

That doesn't make you a non-Skeptic on other matters.

That said, I have gotten increasingly tired of hearing her on the podcast to the point where I have missed most of the last few months.

It's not her Skeptical credentials I am complaining of, it is that she isn't very interesting.
Click to expand...

Then you (and I) can be glad that she isn't as vocal (as in "you don't hear her as much") lately. The others more than make up for it though, so at least it's still interesting.
 
Last edited:
nudger1964 said:
my impression is its more likely to be the other way around
Click to expand...
That is the impressionIget as well. My overall impression is that her objections to EP come from the same place as do the arguments that Truthers make vis-a-vis the physics of the 9/11 building collapses... modify the facts to conform to the argument.
 
Indeed, read these Ad Hom attacks by P Z Meyers...

Quote 1

I am so over Ben Radford. I thought he was obtuse before. Now I’m convinced that he’s simply an idiot.
Click to expand...
&

Quote 2


Yeah, right. F*** the principle of charity. No charity for you, Radford.
Click to expand...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/22/i-am-so-over-the-skeptical-movement/

Does anyone know how to contact him, I wanted to comment to the post directly, but I suspect he would like Truthers, Birthers & Hookers (aka Sandy Hook Truthers) simply delete the comment or refuse to allow it to appear.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
I used to read PZ occasionally but sort of tailed off over time. So, I clicked the link above to see what all the kerfuffle was about . . .

My god it is like some sort of old time religion over there. Everyone who even dares to question the grand wizard is banned. Wow.

Critical thinking has left the building!
Click to expand...

Agree. Thought he wrote some good articles on evolution but things have really gone off the rails.
 
The whole idea of getting upset over someone wearing a certain t-shirt, especially one so innocuous as the one in that link, seems mental to me. To get upset to the point of tears...

Absolutely mental.

Do some people just go through life looking for things to be offended about ?

It must be exhausting.
 
Last edited:
Fact is a number of skeptics who earn a degree of fame let it go to their heads. And they are egged on by some of their fans, who consider them a infallible source of wisdom.
 
Graham2001 said:
Indeed, read these Ad Hom attacks by P Z Meyers...

Quote 1

&

Quote 2


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/22/i-am-so-over-the-skeptical-movement/

Does anyone know how to contact him, I wanted to comment to the post directly, but I suspect he would like Truthers, Birthers & Hookers (aka Sandy Hook Truthers) simply delete the comment or refuse to allow it to appear.
Click to expand...

Did you check? PZ's comments are fairly notoriously free for all. I suspect you'd face a ton of disagreement, but I find it very unlikely you'd be deleted.
 
IMST said:
Did you check? PZ's comments are fairly notoriously free for all. I suspect you'd face a ton of disagreement, but I find it very unlikely you'd be deleted.
Click to expand...

I'd rather send him a direct email... It will advise him to "Grow Up", I had intended to send him something a little less blunt, but after the "F*** the principle of charity" comment I find it hard to consider him to be acting as a mature adult in this matter.
 
Graham2001 said:
I'd rather send him a direct email... It will advise him to "Grow Up", I had intended to send him something a little less blunt, but after the "F*** the principle of charity" comment I find it hard to consider him to be acting as a mature adult in this matter.
Click to expand...

Then why the claim that you'd be deleted? I don't like persecution complexes. I'm pretty sure his email address is somewhere on the site, but I don't know what it is top of head.
 
IMST said:
Then why the claim that you'd be deleted? I don't like persecution complexes. I'm pretty sure his email address is somewhere on the site, but I don't know what it is top of head.
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
Isn't he a member here? If so, just ask him.
Click to expand...

If this is him, he's a member since 2003.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=1265

I wouldn't read anything, telling as it may seem, into the below from his profile. "Friends" weren't available until one of the forum software updates after my arrival several years later. ;)

Friends
pzmyers has not made any friends yet
Befriend pzmyers
Click to expand...
 
Hey we can't all be Vulcans... and besides, Star Trek is replete with examples of where humanity's weakness for emotive reasoning saved the whole ship... so....
 
Graham2001 said:
Indeed, read these Ad Hom attacks by P Z Meyers...

Quote 1

&

Quote 2


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/22/i-am-so-over-the-skeptical-movement/

Does anyone know how to contact him, I wanted to comment to the post directly, but I suspect he would like Truthers, Birthers & Hookers (aka Sandy Hook Truthers) simply delete the comment or refuse to allow it to appear.
Click to expand...

Posting on his blog once is unlikely to get you banned (though posting arguments contrary to his position more than once will get you banned for "trolling") but you will be dogpiled by a collection of extraordinarily boring people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom