How can Dawkins redeem himself?

[Bram Kaandorp]

Please feel free, although I doubt you'll get very many answers.

Although to answer your question briefly - in regards to elevatorgate hitting the mainstream, my friends outside the skeptical community were confused "Umm..yeah, creepy. Maybe a little overboard for that degree of creepy. But what's the big deal? It's pretty good advice."

As for how people who identify as skeptics responded, well, take a look around. Calling myself a skeptic lumps me in with all of the responses.

The nice thing about being a skeptic is that you don't have to identify with all other skeptics.

Being a skeptic is just another way of saying that you demand good evidence for a claim.

It's not about being part of a clique. That's a choice you can make.

Just like most Christians would not identify with the KKK (no, I'm not comparing TAM to KKK, I'm saying that you don't have to identify with people you don't want to identify with).

 

[bookitty]

The nice thing about being a skeptic is that you don't have to identify with all other skeptics.

Being a skeptic is just another way of saying that you demand good evidence for a claim.

It's not about being part of a clique. That's a choice you can make.

Just like most Christians would not identify with the KKK (no, I'm not comparing TAM to KKK, I'm saying that you don't have to identify with people you don't want to identify with).

True, a way of thinking is not dependent on one's peers. So I may use skeptical methods to come to a conclusion, or frame an argument based on things I have learned.

But I will continue to be vocally not-a-skeptic until the movement stops making it more difficult for me to help the people I care about.

 

[RandFan]

...confused "Umm..yeah, creepy. Maybe a little overboard for that degree of creepy. But what's the big deal? It's pretty good advice."

I've read a lot of blogs and watched a lot of videos and I know of no one that thinks it was bad advice. That was never, by and large the issue. I'm sorry your friends got the wrong idea.

As for how people who identify as skeptics responded, well, take a look around. Calling myself a skeptic lumps me in with all of the responses.

Hmmmm..... I'm not sure how that follows. How can you be lumped into both sides of an issue?

ETA: So I should have more accurately said "I do not consider myself part of the frrethought movement."

Well, we wouldn't want our thoughts to be free that's for sure. I don't buy the notion that skeptics or freethinkers are significantly more different than any other group. This is the kind of jumping to conclusions bald assertions I'm talking about.

You just don't like that people aren't brain dead followers of your views.

 

[bookitty]

I've read a lot of blogs and watched a lot of videos and I know of no one that thinks it was bad advice. That was never, by and large the issue. I'm sorry your friends got the wrong idea.

Hmmmm..... I'm not sure how that follows. How can you be lumped into both sides of an issue?

Well, we wouldn't want our thoughts to be free that's for sure. I don't buy the notion that skeptics or freethinkers are significantly more different than any other group. This is the kind of jumping to conclusions bald assertions I'm talking about.

You just don't like that people aren't brain dead followers of your views.

No, I enjoy a good debate (evidence, I'm here.)

But I can not recommend any site in the freethought movement to someone who isn't tuned into the skeptical mindset. The little things that make conversation fun for people who are curious but not prepared - musing, considering, playing devils advocate in order to think something through, playfulness - are treated as flaws. Communication is supposed to take place on some "higher level" where every.single.word is open to being analyzed.

And that's fine. I don't think it should change. Many people seem to get a very deep personal satisfaction from it and I am all for that.

But I would never recommend it for the people I care about because they would not enjoy it. The ones who have been curious about "skepticism as a movement" have been insulted, driven off, or have slipped away quietly never to return. I will not associate myself with people who have done that to those I care for. Especially because they are ever so pleased with themselves.

ETA: I'm not being lumped in with two sides, I am being lumped in with one attitude.

 

[AlBell]

Now. Now. If "skeptics" don't have a few non-skeptics to denigrate they might turn on one another.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Now. Now. If "skeptics" don't have a few non-skeptics to denigrate they might turn on one another.

Since when has that ever stopped them?

 

[RandFan]

But I can not recommend any site in the freethought movement to someone who isn't tuned into the skeptical mindset. The little things that make conversation fun for people who are curious but not prepared - musing, considering, playing devils advocate in order to think something through, playfulness - are treated as flaws. Communication is supposed to take place on some "higher level" where every.single.word is open to being analyzed.

I'll ask you again, how do you control for confirmation bias? Do you know what confirmation bias is?

I think you mistake valid criticism for cynicism. When I go to other forums that are not skeptical and critically oriented conventional wisdom rules the day and fallacy is rampant. Which is okay if everyone agrees mostly and everyone is having fun. Of what importance is the truth?

 

[applecorped]

Of what importance is the truth?

51%

 

[RandFan]

51%

 

[bookitty]

I'll ask you again, how do you control for confirmation bias? Do you know what confirmation bias is?

I think you mistake valid criticism for cynicism. When I go to other forums that are not skeptical and critically oriented conventional wisdom rules the day and fallacy is rampant. Which is okay if everyone agrees mostly and everyone is having fun. Of what importance is the truth?

I think you mistake dogmatism for criticism but we are both spouting opinions. Truth is all well and good and probably more important than people.

Really, why should anyone care about me, or the people like me who were turned off, turned away, insulted, or what have you. What does one overly-emphatic bookdealer mean to the movement as a whole? Nothing. As an individual I am utterly insignificant.

But what if there are many like me? People who are carefully distancing themselves or even actively hostile. Not woo-woos. Just regular human beings with a bit of curiosity and an amateurs fondness for science who no longer speak for skepticism. What harm does that do?

It brings down the numbers. And numbers have power. Truthers (ffs!) were able to influence politicians for a while because of numbers.

TAM had 1600+ this year, science blogs are getting more notice, someone from this forum writes for Cracked and that's pretty darn mainstream. The movement is growing larger every day. Maybe you don't need us.

But, on the off chance that you might, please try to remember that there are more people like me (a bit overly emotional, more invested in people than ideas, leaning towards liberal arts, optimistically expecting rationalist to imply a huge dose of humanist) then like you.

 

[RandFan]

I think you mistake dogmatism for criticism but we are both spouting opinions. Truth is all well and good and probably more important than people.

Really, why should anyone care about me, or the people like me who were turned off, turned away, insulted, or what have you. What does one overly-emphatic bookdealer mean to the movement as a whole? Nothing. As an individual I am utterly insignificant.

But what if there are many like me? People who are carefully distancing themselves or even actively hostile. Not woo-woos. Just regular human beings with a bit of curiosity and an amateurs fondness for science who no longer speak for skepticism. What harm does that do?

It brings down the numbers. And numbers have power. Truthers (ffs!) were able to influence politicians for a while because of numbers.

TAM had 1600+ this year, science blogs are getting more notice, someone from this forum writes for Cracked and that's pretty darn mainstream. The movement is growing larger every day. Maybe you don't need us.

But, on the off chance that you might, please try to remember that there are more people like me (a bit overly emotional, more invested in people than ideas, leaning towards liberal arts, optimistically expecting rationalist to imply a huge dose of humanist) then like you.

I'm very, very happy with what goes on in this forum. What matters is discourse. Debate. I don't attack people. I don't use invective or foul language. I'm not going to lie or dissemble to please people. I'm not going be a trained monkey to entertain people. I use humor when It's a appropriate and have great discussions with people from all stripes. I have many close friends on this forum who are Christian, Mormon, Catholic, etc.. If people argue in good faith and avoid fallacy we do great. THAT'S what this forum is all about.

So do me a favor and skip the guilt trips and/or self righteousness.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I rarely take sides. I find it to be uncomfortably immovable.

Still, this is the essence of what happened:

RW: Guys, don't do that.

Phil, PZ: OMG WE MEN ARE SUCH MISOGYNISTS.

Dawkins: PZ, are you being serious? THAT'S what you think misogyny is? It's just bad manners! HERE is a real example.

RW, PZ, Phil, and a decent portion of the blogosphere: OMG, DAWKINS JUST SAID THAT MISOGYNY ONLY COUNTS IF IT'S EXTREME! WHAT ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS?!

Dawkins: ???

***

I think that is a reasonable summary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is the best way to get the full story on everything to read this thread carefully from the start? Or something else? I thought the story was that EG propositioned RW (or maybe just asked her for coffee) on an elevator and RW got pissed and wrote about it and then RD wrote his reply. But it seems it's a bit more complicated than that. I never even knew about this Stef person until a few posts ago so I have no idea what any of that even is.

And now you appear to be discovering the Stef thing is actually where the real issues started.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Candy is dandy, liquor is quicker, coffee with rohypnol is rumored to be a sure thing.

And you are suggesting you read EG's mind and rohypnol was what he had in mind?

For the record, I do believe most of us females would not have taken EG up on the offer unless he was as hot as George Clooney or Brad Pitt. And then it would have been a minority of women ulless he actually was George Clooney or Brad Pitt.

 

[RemieV]

And you are suggesting you read EG's mind and rohypnol was what he had in mind?

For the record, I do believe most of us females would not have taken EG up on the offer unless he was as hot as George Clooney or Brad Pitt. And then it would have been a minority of women ulless he actually was George Clooney or Brad Pitt.

Banachek. Assuming that 'coffee and talk' means 'coffee and talk'.

 

[Captain Obvious]

I'm pretty glad she didn't go for coffee with him.
It would have kept her awake for a couple of hours and she'd have fallen asleep about 7am - thus missing her breakfast.

 

[ShadowSot]

As for how people who identify as skeptics responded, well, take a look around. Calling myself a skeptic lumps me in with all of the responses.

Yes, a large and varied amount of responses, many I find to be fairly well thought out, with the most part agreeable disagreements.

Hate to be a part of that...


Anyway, I do solemnly swear to never speak to a young lady who is sitting or walking by herself about anything.
I also solemnly swear to stop shaving as it seems a bit pointless now...

 

[epepke]

Epepke (sp?) had a link to a timeline in the other thread on this. I think it has been updated as others made comments.

It's at http://theismatheism.blogspot.com/

Gurdur's blog is helpful: http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1229

 

[the blue raven]

bookitty, I for one appreciate your remarks, refreshing and constructively critical.

Getting back to the whole EG and Watson thing - um to state the obvious, any guy with basic social skills and adequate social interaction with the opposite sex should know what is considered appropriate behaviour and what isn't. Wait for the women to show an interest for one, let her be the one to make the first move or at least give a signal. Women are always giving signals to men, whether ones of interest or lack of interest, consciously or unconsciously. And vice versa. In a very real sense we can't help ourselves. If a woman is interested in you, she has a way of letting you know, if not - and you get your ego out of the way - you will know too. I think too many guys ignore the signals including the body language given by women that they are not interested, because their (the guys') egos and wishful thinking tell them otherwise.

Time and time again I see men making unwanted passes at women because the former just ignore the signals given by the women that they are not interested. I think it's a combination of stupidity and egoism, and a lack of respect for women and girls frankly.

 

[RemieV]

bookitty, I for one appreciate your remarks, refreshing and constructively critical.

Getting back to the whole EG and Watson thing - um to state the obvious, any guy with basic social skills and adequate social interaction with the opposite sex should know what is considered appropriate behaviour and what isn't. Wait for the women to show an interest for one, let her be the one to make the first move or at least give a signal. Women are always giving signals to men, whether ones of interest or lack of interest, consciously or unconsciously. And vice versa. In a very real sense we can't help ourselves. If a woman is interested in you, she has a way of letting you know, if not - and you get your ego out of the way - you will know too. I think too many guys ignore the signals including the body language given by women that they are not interested, because their (the guys') egos and wishful thinking tell them otherwise.

Time and time again I see men making unwanted passes at women because the former just ignore the signals given by the women that they are not interested. I think it's a combination of stupidity and egoism, and a lack of respect for women and girls frankly.

*blink*

Are you being serious right now?

Wow, back to the whole I Speak For All The Women problem, I suppose.

Just because YOU don't like when "guys do blahblahblah overgeneralization blah" doesn't mean the rest of us are with you on that.

Seriously, I'm having difficulty processing the post and all I can think is more *blink*.