Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[RandFan]

I get the impression that people from various forums are monitoring this thread, so I'm going to post this here, in response to the blog post exchanges between PZ Myers and Steve Novella.

If I could give anyone a message it would be this, RW is not helping your cause. I am completely clueless as to how anyone who has behaved so boorishly and unprofessionally could be invited to speak anywhere. If I could get in a second message it would be this, disagreeing with Watson does not make one a mysoginist. And I don't want to hear about that being a straw man. That is how people who have taken issue with her have been treated. She makes no attempt whatsoever to draw a distinction between her detractors and those who have harassed her and/or threatened her.

And for the love of all that is unholy, stop with the privilege BS. Outside of sociological studies about groups it's just a rhetorical device. It doesn't turn a fallacious ad hominem into a logically valid argument. You cannot falsify the notion that any single person's behavior is the result of privilege nor can you declare that any single person has more privilege than any other based on a generalization.

The statement "he's just saying that because he is a privileged white heterosexual male" is just as fallacious as saying, "she's just saying that because she is a woman".

Attack the arguments. Not the person making the argument.

 

[Joe Random]

This is the argument that I've been making. Randi, or the JREF, does not start out with the presumption that there is one truth and everyone who does not understand needs to be sent to a reeducation camp. It might be maddening at times but a truther or psychic comes to this forum with the same standing as anyone else.

And more importantly, they're never suspended or banned merely because they were a truther or psychic. And no matter how tired and debunked the subject, there's almost never a shortage of people willing to hand out info as if it were the first time the subject has ever come up, and with a distinct lack of vitriol to boot.

 

[Quinn]

I was in the process of writing a point-by-point response, when I realized I could pretty much condense it down to this:

The "you're turning off the moderates" argument has a long and sordid history.

Thank you, that answers my question. If people know that's what they're doing and they've decided it's their best option, far be it from me to get in the way of their inward spiral.

And leonAzul, thanks for the nom!

 

[recursive prophet]

Here'a an interesting A+ post on the latest brouhaha by qwints. Seems JREF has been a bad influence on him as he's been venturing onto verboten topics. Looks like for now they have decided to ignore this deviation from A+ canon on not questioning the exalted. The level of hypocrisy displayed on this thread is truly mind bending.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=68614#p68614

Setar, I hear you saying that saying certain topics are off limits is a silencing tactic. You and smhill have done skillfully pointed out that sectioning off topics from critical thinking entrenches the status quo in those areas, and that a Skepticism that refuses to analyze some areas should rightfully be criticized for doing so.

[snip]Here, you've labeled the position that skepticism should not talk about politics or religion Non-Overlapping Magisteria and explicitly linked to an article showing that you're talking about the position named by Stephen Jay Gould. You've then explicitly condemned the concept. I don't think it's silencing to try to defend the concept, though talking about the specific position may be a derail. It simply doesn't make sense to me to criticize someone for discussing a specific concept you brought up in the first place.

Check out this gif. imho it really sums up how Billy's razor applies to theism.

http://www.secularcafe.org/images/smilies/sig_occam.gif

 

[qwints]

If I co

And for the love of all that is unholy, stop with the privilege BS. Outside of sociological studies about groups it's just a rhetorical device. It doesn't turn a fallacious ad hominem into a logically valid argument. You cannot falsify the notion that any single person's behavior is the result of privilege nor can you declare that any single person has more privilege than any other based on a generalization.

The statement "he's just saying that because he is a privileged white heterosexual male" is just as fallacious as saying, "she's just saying that because she is a woman".

People who say you're just saying x because you're a member of y group are making a fallacious agreement. Any discussion of "cumulative privilege" is similarly a bad idea - there are lots of different axes - which is why I brought up intersectionality earlier. But the argument that someone who hasn't had a personal experience doesn't know what that personal experience is like is fundamentally sound.

After all:

Tom Petty's "You Don't Know How it Feels"

Let me run with you tonight
I'll take you on a moonlight ride
There's someone I used to see
But she don't give a damn for me

But let me get to the point, let's roll another joint
And turn the radio loud, I'm too alone to be proud
You don't know how it feels
You don't know how it feels to be me

People come, people go
Some grow young, some grow cold
I woke up in between
A memory and a dream

So let's get to the point, let's roll another joint
Let's head on down the road
There's somewhere I gotta go
And you don't know how it feels
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net ]
You don't know how it feels to be me

My old man was born to rock
He's still tryin' to beat the clock
Think of me what you will
I've got a little space to fill

So let's get to the point, let's roll another joint
And let's head on down the road
There's somewhere I got to go
And you don't know how it feels
You don't know how it feels
No, you don't know how it feels to be me

You don't know how it feels
You don't know how it feels
No, you don't know how it feels to be me

 

[RandFan]

But the argument that someone who hasn't had a personal experience doesn't know what that personal experience is like is fundamentally sound.

I will grant the premise for sake of argument. What difference does it make if I don't know how it feels to be you? You are an anecdote. Are you making a hasty generalization? I don't understand your point.

 

[bedlin88]

People who say you're just saying x because you're a member of y group are making a fallacious agreement. Any discussion of "cumulative privilege" is similarly a bad idea - there are lots of different axes - which is why I brought up intersectionality earlier. But the argument that someone who hasn't had a personal experience doesn't know what that personal experience is like is fundamentally sound.

I have to agree with Randfan, what's the point. You can say also that two different people can have the same experience but won't know what the others personal experience of that experience is either. It get you nowhere and solves nothing. I can't ever truly know what someone else feels or how they react to their experiences neither can you nor can anyone else.

 

[squealpiggy]

The study says nothing about setting a "minimum standard for equal opportunity." It says that employers were less likely to respond to an equally qualified resume if that resume had an African American sounding name than if it had a White sounding name.

Is that the case though? Does having an "African American" sounding name affect the prospective employers' actions? Are you sure that "African American" names such as Christopher or Jordan or Isiah are affecting those employers?

In other words is there some other demographic bias that could be coming into play with relation to names like Lakisha and Jamal? For example socioeconomic status or level of education?

The only way to test for bias in skin colour is to test bias with regards to skin colour. If you apply an arbitrary secondary characteristic to test for then you're only testing that characteristic, in this case names that tend to be African American and also tend to be chosen by parents of lower socioeconomic status and/or lower standards of education.

ETA The names Lakisha and Jamal are the ones used in the study posted by qints. The study seems biased to me, as the authors seize upon the conclusion that the lack of response to the "African American" names (scare quotes used to demonstrate that the study authors decided that these names reflected a certain ethnic heritage) was racist and then further speculate on the prospective employers' motives, viz:

...employers may feel that these skills have less value because African Americans do not possess other traits (e.g. resourcefulness) to fully use them...

There are other issues with the logic of the study. They chose two "very white sounding" names, Emily and Brendan. These are also two very middle class sounding names. Why did they not choose "very white sounding names" like Darren or Brittni, Earl or Krystal? Why did they not choose African sounding names like Abayomi or Folashade?

It would be much more interesting to provide resumes with a number of different "ethnic" names, like with Chinese names or names from India instead of simply dividing it along a single axis.

As it happens this study reads like one in which the authors set out to get a certain result and then acted surprised when they got it.

 

[Krikkiter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7SRa_xQNQ

 

[qwints]

I will grant the premise for sake of argument. What difference does it make if I don't know how it feels to be you? You are an anecdote. Are you making a hasty generalization? I don't understand your point.

It makes a difference if you're telling me how it should feel to be me. It makes a difference if you're telling me my experience doesn't matter. It makes a difference if you're opining on the problems of groups you're not a member of.

 

[qwints]

In other words is there some other demographic bias that could be coming into play with relation to names like Lakisha and Jamal? For example socioeconomic status or level of education?

The employers responded differently to identical resumes with different names. The level of education was identical. They chose the names based on census data for names that were most common in one group and least common in the other. They did surveys where they asked people what race they associated with the names.

One study isn't probative, and the study was quite limited - it only measured call backs from applications to positions posted on job web sites in two cities. But I ask again - if this study is indicative of a societal trend, what does that have to say about equal opportunity.

 

[RandFan]

It makes a difference if you're telling me how it should feel to be me. It makes a difference if you're telling me my experience doesn't matter. It makes a difference if you're opining on the problems of groups you're not a member of.

I've never told anyone how it should feel to be them. If you are using your experience as evidence of anything other than your life it's anecdotal evidence. I can't speak to your last proposition as I'm not sure what you mean. Mormons often tell non-Mormons that they have no right criticize them. That's a fallacy. Is that what you mean? I've never been a Scientologist so I can't comment on Scientology? Sociologists and anthropologists cannot hold opinions about groups they are not a member of? Or do you mean something else? You are far too vague.

 

[squealpiggy]

The employers responded differently to identical resumes with different names. The level of education was identical. They chose the names based on census data for names that were most common in one group and least common in the other. They did surveys where they asked people what race they associated with the names.

But they didn't choose any other ethnic sounding names, they included no controls, and they chose names with a socioeconomic bias. The level of education may have been identical but I'm fairly sure that the authors were aware of perceptual set and the principle that even if you put your education as "PhD in economics and an MBA from Harvard" they're going to be wary of an applicant called Smileypants McFunnybones.

The study design has biases.

One study isn't probative, and the study was quite limited - it only measured call backs from applications to positions posted on job web sites in two cities. But I ask again - if this study is indicative of a societal trend, what does that have to say about equal opportunity.

Is this the never-back-down version of "Yes, you're right, the study was poorly designed"?

The study measures peoples' responses to names suggestive of certain socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. They prefer to hire people whose upbringing was middle class than people whose upbringing was likely to be poor and urban. This is an issue, and a reason why socioeconomic background, welfare recipient status and record of offenses are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the human rights code of Canada.

It doesn't necessarily relate to race though. The race aspect was a projection made by the authors of the study.

 

[Verklagekasper]

But the argument that someone who hasn't had a personal experience doesn't know what that personal experience is like is fundamentally sound.

Stripped of context, it is fundamentally trivial. Within the context of social justice debates, it is fundamentally deceptive. Because it doesn't actually resemble something that social activists would embrace. They only use this argument to denounce others, while they deny that it applies to them as well.

Most feminists are "privileged" by their own mythology in that they are white, educated, not poor. Yet they pretend that they could understand what being part of a marginalized group feels like, substantiating that claim with anecdotes about uncomfortable experiences they had. At the same time, however, they deny that way of arguing to others, arbitrarily declaring them too "privileged" to understand.

 

[qwints]

@squalpiggy:
What's your evidence that those names are suggestive of socioeconomic or educational background? Remember that the resumes had identical addresses and educational backgrounds and only differed in the name.


@Randfan,
You can absolutely criticize Mormonism, Scientology or Islam for that matter without having experienced what it's like to be a member of one of those groups. If someone claims a personal religious experience, you should believe their subjective experience and criticize their interpretation of what it means.

Most feminists are "privileged" by their own mythology in that they are white, educated, not poor. Yet they pretend that they could understand what being part of a marginalized group feels like, substantiating that claim with anecdotes about uncomfortable experiences they had. At the same time, however, they deny that way of arguing to others, arbitrarily declaring them too "privileged" to understand.

I will absolutely join you in criticizing anyone, including self-identified feminists, who claims to understand what being part of a marginalized group that they are not a member of feels like.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Re: Atheism Plus

I will absolutely join you in criticizing anyone, including self-identified feminists, who claims to understand what being part of a marginalized group that they are not a member of feels like.

But it is so fortunate that a member can speak for all other members experiences.

 

[Daald]

This problem was pointed out up above and you have avoided it.

Take two people who have had their foot chopped off. How do you know they feel the same? The first person can feel fine about it and the second could feel that it was the most horrible thing that has ever happened.

How do you deal with this group of two? Their subjective experiences differ. Whoever you choose to believe you will marginalize the other.

In the end the solution is pretty obvious. You need more data and that data has to be something more than just the person's word. So you come up with tests that are properly controlled and then you can push for changes based on that data.

It seems to us that at A+ the first step has been enshrined and the second step relegated to an insult (how dare you don't believe us. You're trying to twofootsplain to us. Shut up you don't know what it is to be me.).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This problem was pointed out up above and you have avoided it.

Take two people who have had their foot chopped off. How do you know they feel the same? The first person can feel fine about it and the second could feel that it was the most horrible thing that has ever happened.

How do you deal with this group of two? Their subjective experiences differ. Whoever you choose to believe you will marginalize the other.

In the end the solution is pretty obvious. You need more data and that data has to be something more than just the person's word. So you come up with tests that are properly controlled and then you can push for changes based on that data.

It seems to us that at A+ the first step has been enshrined and the second step relegated to an insult (how dare you don't believe us. You're trying to twofootsplain to us. Shut up you don't know what it is to be me.).

Well said.

See also: Harriet Hall's shirt. How dare she have a good time at TAM!!!

 

[RandFan]

This problem was pointed out up above and you have avoided it.

Take two people who have had their foot chopped off. How do you know they feel the same? The first person can feel fine about it and the second could feel that it was the most horrible thing that has ever happened.

How do you deal with this group of two? Their subjective experiences differ. Whoever you choose to believe you will marginalize the other.

In the end the solution is pretty obvious. You need more data and that data has to be something more than just the person's word. So you come up with tests that are properly controlled and then you can push for changes based on that data.

It seems to us that at A+ the first step has been enshrined and the second step relegated to an insult (how dare you don't believe us. You're trying to twofootsplain to us. Shut up you don't know what it is to be me.).

Exactly!

 

[bedlin88]

This problem was pointed out up above and you have avoided it.

I'm used to being ignored