I tried to watch it but couldn’t; too annoying. But in case you want to, here it is:
The US "Skeptics" break their silence on Cass with Rebecca Watson coming out to bat for batshit. What an excellent example of motivated reasoning in this 15 minute YouTube video. https://t.co/IAqsRTvMOI
I just can’t figure this out,either. Skeptic liberals I otherwise respect like Mano Singham and Marcus ranum have totally bought into mystical gender woo
Brian M, I don’t think either Singham or Ranum have bought into the gender woo, but have passively acquiesced to it. I think if asked in private how many human sexes there are, they’d say two. But they’ll never say it in public because of the condemnation they’d get from the commentariat on FtB and elsewhere. They’re certainly not going to ever give gender critical views a fair hearing, obviously.
Just goes to show. The skeptics movement was never serious about critical thinking, it was more interested in self-superiority. I think self-described skeptics are some of the least self-aware people I’ve ever seen when it comes to their own cognitive biases and blind spots. They’re often the most irrational people I encounter — so confident of their intellectual authority that they’re absolute suckers for confidence men. I formed this view back in my Centre for Inquiry days. I thought I was about to enter some kind of utopian social network full of brilliant, friendly, science-minded geniuses, like the Enterprise crew on Star Trek: The Next Generation. But I met an awful lot of arrogant, socially-inept nerds at those meetups and lectures and debates, and they had an awful lot of weird, irrational views, so I stopped going.
Ask these so called “skeptics” why so many “transwomen” have dominated women’s sporting events, often setting records (but not really) in the process. Basic biology much? Basic education even? Common sense, ffs?
I’m finding that they deny that any trans women dominate or set records (or at least any that aren’t soon beaten by “cis women”). The denial is that strong.
twiliter and J.A..: just this week, Marcus Ranum commented on Mano’s site. He sneered that “transphobes” would be opposed to a trans woman entering a woman’s eating contest. Hardehar.
I think he at least is fully invested.
And I get it. It’s easy to go along with fashion. Be Kind and all that. The vast majority of vocal opponents are religious nutters who are usually virulent Trumpers. It’s unpleasant to share a position with the likes of Matt Walsh (who brutally shows up trans nonsense while being a reactionary Catholic) or Republican politicians
J.A., Mano has gone down that pathway. Not as far as some, but he is definitely not refraining from taking sides on the issue – the anti-science side. When arguments on the subject raged through his blog, he chose not to subject-matter restrict the guy that quoted my own source back at me but with sentences removed to reverse the meaning, nor the guy that promised to get the last word in an argument and brags that he succeeded. He chose instead to ask the only person consistently sticking up for the sceptical side of the argument to refrain from that subject.
So not a full-throated supporter like PZ, but still a supporter.
Artymorty, my experience at CFI-Los Angeles was very different. I met a lot of intelligent people who were both committed to critical thinking and capable of the necessary intellectual humility. Everybody wasn’t a genius, but they didn’t imagine that they were.
Of course, I don’t doubt your experience. But mine was different.
Which reminds me, there’s a lot of cargo-cult skepticism around these days. I argue on Facebook (because I’m an idiot, also a masochist), and I see a lot of (mostly young) people demanding “peer-reviewed evidence” and dropping the names of logical fallacies or cognitive biases they either do not understand or believe they themselves are immune to.
Some people must get to the stage where they fluff themselves for their own smartitude, and stop there. It’s a comfortable place to be.
Some people must get to the stage where they fluff themselves for their own smartitude, and stop there. It’s a comfortable place to be.
Reminds me of this quote I came across recently, from a short story by Mark Twain:
I told you that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; a permanent one is a human impossibility; as soon as the Seeker finds what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather-proof and keep it from caving in on him.
Lady M, I was at CFI – Los Angeles. Maybe we met there and didn’t know it! And I had the same experience, though of course there were a lot of the other type there. Most conferences I go to are that way – an admixture of genuine critical thinkers who are good at it, and self-aggrandizing skeptics who stop when they get to what they want the truth to be, and spend a lot of time bullying those who don’t agree.
I’m finding that they deny that any trans women dominate or set records (or at least any that aren’t soon beaten by “cis women”). The denial is that strong.
We have here another “how to lie with statistics” phenomenon. If you point out the TiMs who have dominated and won in woman’s sport, they will say it is only a tiny fraction of all the women in sport, so what’s the problem? As if that proves TiMs won’t dominate wherever they are.
The better way to approach it – and maybe someone has, but I’m too tired to look for it right now – is how the win ratio for TiMs, compared to how many TiMs are in women’s sport, compares to a similar ratio to women in women’s sport.
In other words, are TiMs winning at a higher rate than their numbers would suggest? It isn’t about how many medals/records are stolen from women; even one is too many. It’s about whether a TiM has a higher chance of winning compared to a woman athlete in the same sport. If they are winning out of proportion to their numbers, then they are in fact showing an unfair advantage, especially since some of them started training rather late for an elite athlete, and some of them were little more than mediocre as men in the same sport.
Yeah, figures. I think the only US “skeptics” who HAVEN’T come out on that side are Jerry Coyne and Nick Matzke.
I think Michael Shermer is another.
I just can’t figure this out,either. Skeptic liberals I otherwise respect like Mano Singham and Marcus ranum have totally bought into mystical gender woo
Brian M, I don’t think either Singham or Ranum have bought into the gender woo, but have passively acquiesced to it. I think if asked in private how many human sexes there are, they’d say two. But they’ll never say it in public because of the condemnation they’d get from the commentariat on FtB and elsewhere. They’re certainly not going to ever give gender critical views a fair hearing, obviously.
Just goes to show. The skeptics movement was never serious about critical thinking, it was more interested in self-superiority. I think self-described skeptics are some of the least self-aware people I’ve ever seen when it comes to their own cognitive biases and blind spots. They’re often the most irrational people I encounter — so confident of their intellectual authority that they’re absolute suckers for confidence men. I formed this view back in my Centre for Inquiry days. I thought I was about to enter some kind of utopian social network full of brilliant, friendly, science-minded geniuses, like the Enterprise crew on Star Trek: The Next Generation. But I met an awful lot of arrogant, socially-inept nerds at those meetups and lectures and debates, and they had an awful lot of weird, irrational views, so I stopped going.
Aptly enough, the skeptical movement was a good example of social contagion.
Ask these so called “skeptics” why so many “transwomen” have dominated women’s sporting events, often setting records (but not really) in the process. Basic biology much? Basic education even? Common sense, ffs?
@ twiliter #7
I’m finding that they deny that any trans women dominate or set records (or at least any that aren’t soon beaten by “cis women”). The denial is that strong.
twiliter and J.A..: just this week, Marcus Ranum commented on Mano’s site. He sneered that “transphobes” would be opposed to a trans woman entering a woman’s eating contest. Hardehar.
I think he at least is fully invested.
And I get it. It’s easy to go along with fashion. Be Kind and all that. The vast majority of vocal opponents are religious nutters who are usually virulent Trumpers. It’s unpleasant to share a position with the likes of Matt Walsh (who brutally shows up trans nonsense while being a reactionary Catholic) or Republican politicians
J.A., Mano has gone down that pathway. Not as far as some, but he is definitely not refraining from taking sides on the issue – the anti-science side. When arguments on the subject raged through his blog, he chose not to subject-matter restrict the guy that quoted my own source back at me but with sentences removed to reverse the meaning, nor the guy that promised to get the last word in an argument and brags that he succeeded. He chose instead to ask the only person consistently sticking up for the sceptical side of the argument to refrain from that subject.
So not a full-throated supporter like PZ, but still a supporter.
Artymorty, my experience at CFI-Los Angeles was very different. I met a lot of intelligent people who were both committed to critical thinking and capable of the necessary intellectual humility. Everybody wasn’t a genius, but they didn’t imagine that they were.
Of course, I don’t doubt your experience. But mine was different.
Which reminds me, there’s a lot of cargo-cult skepticism around these days. I argue on Facebook (because I’m an idiot, also a masochist), and I see a lot of (mostly young) people demanding “peer-reviewed evidence” and dropping the names of logical fallacies or cognitive biases they either do not understand or believe they themselves are immune to.
Some people must get to the stage where they fluff themselves for their own smartitude, and stop there. It’s a comfortable place to be.
@Lady Mondegreen,
Reminds me of this quote I came across recently, from a short story by Mark Twain:
I think I will have to steal “Cargo-Cult Skepticism”, Lady M. It’s too perfect. Hope you don’t mind.
Artymorty, gawd what a great mind ol’ Sam had. And heart.
Freemage, steal away! I probably didn’t come up with it myself; I don’t remember.
Lady M, I was at CFI – Los Angeles. Maybe we met there and didn’t know it! And I had the same experience, though of course there were a lot of the other type there. Most conferences I go to are that way – an admixture of genuine critical thinkers who are good at it, and self-aggrandizing skeptics who stop when they get to what they want the truth to be, and spend a lot of time bullying those who don’t agree.
I’m finding that they deny that any trans women dominate or set records (or at least any that aren’t soon beaten by “cis women”). The denial is that strong.
We have here another “how to lie with statistics” phenomenon. If you point out the TiMs who have dominated and won in woman’s sport, they will say it is only a tiny fraction of all the women in sport, so what’s the problem? As if that proves TiMs won’t dominate wherever they are.
The better way to approach it – and maybe someone has, but I’m too tired to look for it right now – is how the win ratio for TiMs, compared to how many TiMs are in women’s sport, compares to a similar ratio to women in women’s sport.
In other words, are TiMs winning at a higher rate than their numbers would suggest? It isn’t about how many medals/records are stolen from women; even one is too many. It’s about whether a TiM has a higher chance of winning compared to a woman athlete in the same sport. If they are winning out of proportion to their numbers, then they are in fact showing an unfair advantage, especially since some of them started training rather late for an elite athlete, and some of them were little more than mediocre as men in the same sport.
I too have been to CFI-LA. Gave a talk. Definitely met Lady M. That was long before the trans rifts – they’d never invite me now.