Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
I left the other thread for precisely that reason. I said I was taking the null position (not contrary), and I was told, then you must be claiming that the accuser (Ben Radford's accuser and not Shermer's) must be lying.

No. I'm agnostic. I don't know the facts. When I pointed out the Duke Lacrosse rape case and sometimes women lie I was told "only when they lie". As if it is obvious to everyone when they do. Never mind that most people accepted the accuser's allegations in that case.
Click to expand...

In the strict sense I'm agnostic on the Radford case as well, but in my opinion there's a clear preponderance of evidence accumulating against him.

But really, how completely unskeptical can skeptics be whenever we touch upon such emotional subjects? It staggers my tiny irrational mind, it does.
 
Lorentz said:
In the strict sense I'm agnostic on the Radford case as well, but in my opinion there's a clear preponderance of evidence accumulating against him.
Click to expand...
I'd say against both. Apart from the rape allegation, it seems pretty clear by now that both are, let's say, somewhat unpleasant in the romantic department.

Lorentz said:
But really, how completely unskeptical can skeptics be whenever we touch upon such emotional subjects? It staggers my tiny irrational mind, it does.
Click to expand...
One thing I've learned from this whole episode is that if you call yourself a skeptic and someone else is skeptical of something you believe, you can call them hyperskeptical, and conveniently free yourself of the obligation to listen to or interact with them, thus settling the issue.
 
Lorentz said:
In the strict sense I'm agnostic on the Radford case as well, but in my opinion there's a clear preponderance of evidence accumulating against him.
Click to expand...
I should note that I made clear that my cursory reading of the alegations led me to believe that the preponderance of evidence weighed against Radford. I stated explicitly that if I had to guess it would be that Radford is guilty. I also stated that I did not mind that other people had formed opinions and that there is nothing wrong with doing so. I did however discuss the concept in the law known as presumption of innocence and the concept of mob mentality. I think it would be nice if skeptics were a little less likely to jump on bandwagons for emotional reasons.

But really, how completely unskeptical can skeptics be whenever we touch upon such emotional subjects? It staggers my tiny irrational mind, it does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I never attacked Stollznow with typical apologetics. I had just urged others to consider the propriety of making conclusive decisions or emphatic declarations concerning Radford's guilt.
 
RandFan said:
I should note that I made clear that my cursory reading of the alegations led me to believe that the preponderance of evidence weighed against Radford. I stated explicitly that if I had to guess it would be that Radford is guilty. I also stated that I did not mind that other people had formed opinions and that there is nothing wrong with doing so. I did however discuss the concept in the law known as presumption of innocence and the concept of mob mentality. I think it would be nice if skeptics were a little less likely to jump on bandwagons for emotional reasons.
Click to expand...
Agree completely with your final sentence.

However, for us, Occam's Razor is probably a more useful cognitive tool than an uninvolved party weighing the preponderance of known visible evidence and/or other legalistic concepts being applied by lay people who don't know all of the "stuff" that may emerge.

If you apply the razor to the Stollznow scenario though, the likely and simple explanation, IMO, is that her various prominent backers are telling the truth. Large logical leaps (=/= simplicity) would be required to explain a scenario where things were otherwise.

It's obviously not enough to convict Radford figuratively or otherwise, but it should (IMO) inform the attitude any skeptic takes while waiting for the full story.
 
cnels said:
Agree completely with your final sentence.

However, for us, Occam's Razor is probably a more useful cognitive tool than an uninvolved party weighing the preponderance of known visible evidence and/or other legalistic concepts being applied by lay people who don't know all of the "stuff" that may emerge.

If you apply the razor to the Stollznow scenario though, the likely and simple explanation, IMO, is that her various prominent backers are telling the truth. Large logical leaps (=/= simplicity) would be required to explain a scenario where things were otherwise.

It's obviously not enough to convict Radford figuratively or otherwise, but it should (IMO) inform the attitude any skeptic takes while waiting for the full story.
Click to expand...
Thanks, beyond what you do agree with, I'm not sure to what extent we disagree. The attitudes of the mob can have a profound affect on the judicial system. If it were not for a massive swell of public sentiment, George Zimmerman would likely not have been tried. When the mob demands the head of the accused, sometimes the legal system fails due process and the presumption of innocence.

If a skeptic wants to form an opinion as to what likely happened then I have no problem with that. If a skeptic is loudly proclaiming Radford guilty without any caveats about opinion or limits on their ability to objectively know all of the facts outside of a courtroom then I think that is a real problem. Such a person is very likely ruled by emotion and confirmation bias in that instance and is not at all being skeptical (skepticism calls for us to be skeptical of our own intuitions). And let's face it, the vast majority of skeptics are not always ruled by cold objective facts most of the time. What a waste of time that would be. It would be paralyzing to second guess each and everyone of our intuitions.

The human mind is a rationalizing machine and not a computer. Formal logic, skepticism and critical thinking are hard. Not only hard but often counter intuitive. They are counter to the fuzzy logic, prone to error, prone to familial, cultural and peer influences, justifying, human mind (see Ramachandran on Aphasia and Split Brain studies, Spolsky on Toxo, Pinker's The Blank Slate, Shermer's The Believing Brain and Richard Wiseman on human psychology and how easy it is to fool people through psychological manipulation. James Randi is also an excellent source).

Let me know if anyone wants specific citations and sources.
 
Last edited:
Ooh, I left out Susan Galef's excellent Straw Vulcan as a reference. This talk explains why it is so damn difficult for humans to make decisions sans emotion. We did not evolve to make decisions the way a computer makes decisions. We are first and foremost emotionally driven even when we don't realize it. Like Ramachandran, Spolsky and others, her conclusions are driven by the study of brain pathology. In the case of the Straw Vulcan we are talking primarily of damage to the ventral parietal cortex (Phineas Gage being one of the most famous afflicted by damage to that area of the brain).
 
Last edited:
RandFan, I agree with everything you wrote.

My only slight (initial) difference was that weighing evidence in a semi-legal sense as a lay person is more like pseudo skepticism since it should be obvious we don't have the full story, and that the razor is a more suitable way of determining how to behave going forward.

Neither one lets us make a firm conclusion or justifies the type of pronouncements you cited of course. My point was that I think the latter is less subject to misuse, and also anyone using it is less likely to feel they've reached a final conclusion prematurely. To me, an important aspect of skepticism is examining one's own cognitive tools and style to minimize error.

We don't have a disagreement, I was just picking up some nuance in your post and discussing it :)
 
The thing is, Myers knows all of this.
With that in mind, what was he hoping to achieve? Justice? An increase in public awareness? Something else?
 
Dissolution said:
The thing is, Myers knows all of this.
With that in mind, what was he hoping to achieve? Justice? An increase in public awareness? Something else?
Click to expand...

IIRC, his book (which is essentially punched up versions of his blog posts) went on sale this week. But I'm sure he wasn't at all trying to whip up publicity for or draw attention to himself or anything like that ...
 
Joe Random said:
IIRC, his book (which is essentially punched up versions of his blog posts) went on sale this week. But I'm sure he wasn't at all trying to whip up publicity for or draw attention to himself or anything like that ...
Click to expand...

And I thought that I was cynical...

That's reaching a bit, in my view.
 
Lorentz said:
And I thought that I was cynical...

That's reaching a bit, in my view.
Click to expand...


Obviously I have no evidence, so this is all just based on 'gut feeling', and as such I readily admit I could be 100% wrong. And even said gut feeling isn't that it was a primary motivator. At the same time, I can easily see someone who has eagerly made himself part of an online callout culture (and who publicly renounced the skeptic movement recently) happily availing himself of what he perceived to be a nice bit of synchronicity.

Again, though, if I were wrong I wouldn't be shocked to my core or anything.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by adamwho
Mr Deity talks about not believing anonymous accounts (link to YouTube video)
Click to expand...
He's getting crucified for that video. His point is sailing over a lot of heads of people who then immediately strawman "Are you calling a rape victim a liar?" No- how can you call someone a liar when you don't know who they are?
Click to expand...

It gets MUCH crazier....


Over on the atheism+ reddit
kutuzof: The Mr. Deity guy and the person PZ talking about in his post are good buddies. They probably go to bars and try to rape women together.

lasthop: I get now that they're good buddies. I get that BD is engaging in good 'ol victim blaming. I don't understand why you feel comfortable accusing BD of being a rapist.

kutuzof: I'm just pissed off that the majority of the atheist / skeptic community is rallying to the defence of this shermer ******* (and I'm not basing that off this whole story, I'm basing that off his longer history) and throwing PZ under the bus.
Click to expand...

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheismplus...outube_atheist_comedian_mr_deity_just/cbo3rn6

So there you have it. They accuse Mr Deity (Brian Dalton) of being a rapist, because they are mad at him for wanting evidence. And they wonder why people might not take their claims at face value.
 
Last edited:
adamwho said:
It gets MUCH crazier....


Over on the atheism+ reddit


http://www.reddit.com/r/atheismplus...outube_atheist_comedian_mr_deity_just/cbo3rn6

So there you have it. They accuse Mr Deity (Brian Dalton) of being a rapist, because they are mad at him for wanting evidence. And they wonder why people might not take their claims at face value.
Click to expand...

I guess the only hope for a soft fall for the skeptical community is that they formally abandon connections with skepticism ASAP. I'm not really sure why they still carry the skepticism/secular banner, anyway. They've made it clear that non-A+/FTBers are disgusting people (and some of them have even been labeled criminals)!

It's like Coca-Cola. "New Atheism" (A+) has failed in the marketplace and it's time to rebrand by going back to the classics. They should just rename the site "Social Justice Blogs" or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom