Hey.
So we've been having a one sided conversation for approaching 30 years now.
U2 is undoubtedly the most important band in my life, and you have been many things to me including idol and insufferable. At least you have an awareness and sense of humour about the latter. (Unlike that prat Sting who is second only to George Lucas in the degree he has ruined the piece of my youth that he also made so tremendous.)
I appreciate and even admire the work you do, but at times I do kind wish you'd just STFU - case in point, your TED Talk. Fuuuuuuuuck.
And specific to this season, I laugh overtime I hear the words "Tonight thank God its them instead of you." It always sounds just a bit meanspirited to me - which is not only out of character, but utterly opposed to the actual intent, I know.
I kind of suspect that if we were to discuss a range of skeptical subjects my opinion would descend, for at the very least your faith.
But... I just wanted to say...
THANK YOU FOR TELLING OPRAH TO STICK IT.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Holiday Christmas Shopping - Scienterrific Books!!!
I mentioned previously that I was going to be a guest on Skeptically Speaking again. The live show was Friday, and is now available for download with links to all the many books discussed.
As always the show was fun to be on. I wish we could have got more discussion in than we did, but it was a very full show as it was.
I often come out the other end of these events feeling like I was at best a shotgun of information. Perhaps I had some impact if I was aimed at the appropriate target, but even then I was all over the place. So I figured I'd take a little bit of time to mention my books (as well as the books I had on my shortlist that other guests spoke about.
When I was asked to be on the show I polled some friends as to what books I should talk about. Only one made the final list, but several appeared on my shortlist and I'll touch on them below. I automatically nixed all Sagan books. I figured he was a shoe in - and sure enough two Sagan books were mentioned by other guests. Contact and Demon Haunted World. I also considered the Cosmos companion, and Broca's Brain.
First up, my actual four picks for the show:
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
I mentioned on the show that when I was asked to do the show I polled a few friends to see what they came up with. I actually didn't use a single one of their suggestions except this one - which I had already thought of. But every single one of them included this in their list. I was actually surprised that none of the other guests mentioned it.
This is totally gateway-drug territory. I don't think I've ever read a science book that covers so much in such an enjoyable fashion. It's very much 'sci-light' but that is it's charm. Since it's publication it has gone slightly out of date - as I mentioned on the show the first two chapters alone have information that has changed since the book was written, but errata for that and other mistakes is easily available on-line.
While Bryson does get into a patina of explanation of science that ranges from the beginnong of the universe to the evolution of man, the heart of this book is really the stories behind the discoveries. He delves deep into the quirks of the scientists and the history behind those who made parallel yet unheralded discoveries or those upon whose gigantic shoulders the heros of science stood upon.
It is at the same time funny and fascinating... something I'm informed that Bryson fans find to be his stock-in-trade, though I must admit that after trying several of his other books based on the promise of this one, I haven't found a single other one of his books that I've been able to finish.
The Transparent Society by Dr. David Brin
David Brin is serious man-crush territory for me. I think he is the greatest living science fiction writer, he maintains an excellent blog, and YouTube channel, has a resume that includes CalTech and the JPL, had the jam to follow in Asimov's shoes and (ulp!) contribute to the Foundation series, and building upon the thinking in the Transparent Society has become one of the world's leading voices in the on-going discussion about privacy, transparency and freedom.
I hardly know where to begin with this book. It covers a lot of territory and it's hard for me to talk about it without drifting into my own feelings about the issues herein. Some of it is scary - but that is exactly why it is important. Being over 12 years old by now there are parts of this book that are self-evident - but that is part of it's strength. You find yourself looking at the things he has got right and considering the portions that most rub you the wrong way with greater gravity.
I think this book is important to a world that is filled with citizens in denial and/or paranoia and not enough in a well reasoned middle.
Wikipedia sums it up with quotes from Brin, that the book is ultimately a proponent of a world where:
Arcadia by Tom Stoppard
The thing about Arcadia that I most failed to illuminate on the show is that it is a work of such rich complexity that subsequent readings (or viewings - it is a play, after all) never fail to open up new layers of understanding.
Tom Stoppard is one of the truly most amazing playwrights of our time. While the average Jane may not be familiar with his name, they more than likely know of a film he won an Academy Award for - Shakespeare in Love. The whimsical, multi-faceted treatment he gives the Bard is akin to the reverence he gives mathematics (and thermo-dynamics, and chaos, and fluid-dynamics, and determinism, and and and....) in Arcadia.
The play actually takes place in two times (but the same place) simultaneously at a country house in Derbyshire, as a set of modern academics attempt to untie the events of roughly a 180 years previously which the audience is also party to and see unfold in tandem. All kinds of clever elements connect both times, but the favourite has got to be one of the simplest - a live pet turtle who roams freely on the desk that makes up the primary set-piece. The turtle is the same one in each time-period, simply 180 years difference in it's age.
No real spoilers here - this is a play that needs to be discovered. And should it coax you to explore the nature of re-iterative mathematics in the process, so much the better.
The Physics of the Buffyverse - by Jennifer Ouellette
Here's another excellent gateway-drug book. I suppose it's rather self-evident that being a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan is a useful prerequisite (though I suppose not entirely necessary - but one would have to ask "why would you bother?") to reading this book. In fact, a warning is certainly in order. If you are a Buffy fan who is not complete on the two TV series (the comic books do not factor) then this book will spoil key plot details right through to the final season of each, and it won't waste much time getting around to doing so, so don't even tease yourself it you are serious about not getting spoiled.
I think I may have done this book a disservice on the show. Like Brief History... it is pretty much sci-light. But Ouellette does a better job of getting into the finer points of the science science she covers than Bryson does. I know a fair bit of general science, and I learned from this book. Sometimes the Buffy-based examples actually give a perspective that helps clarify some details of physics that isn't quite so intuitive, and in other cases I simply learned some basic trivia facts that had previously passed me by - for example, I had no idea that elements above Iron were heavier than their atomic number, while those below were lighter.
In Buffy-speak: This book is big on the easy-learny.
Which brings us to the other books of note...
I included Imagining Head-Smashed-In by Jack Brink in my end-of-show honourable mentions. Very cool book. Sort of forensic archeological historic storytelling about the buffalo hunters of the Northern Great Plains - specifically at Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump.
My fellow live panellists (as opposed to the pre-recorded ones - the other possible parsing of that phrase is too much to bear) each chose a book I want to single out.
Nicole Gugliucci - the Noisy Astronomer - selected Dr. Phil Plait's Death from the Skies, which is a metric fuck-ton of awesome. It's the book that inspired Dr. Plait's TV show Bad Universe and is one of those rare laugh out loud science books. He looks at a dozen aspects of astronomy through the lens of a Hollywood conceit - "the world is going to end because of 'X'" - and then looks at the real science behind it. For a related but entirely separate taste, check out his analysis of Armageddon. Indeed I had this book on my original four list, but figured the astronomer should get to talk about the astronomy book, so I put up no fight and replaced it with Arcadia.
Dana Blumrosen chose The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, which I haven't read, but has been on a long list of "I must get around to reading that" titles since I heard about it and Henrietta Lacks on Radio Lab's (which everyone should listen to) Famous Tumors episode.
One of the pre-recorded bits featured books I had on my short list: Daniel Loxton's Evolution. It was the first book I bought my daughter. She's still too young for it at three... months. But all in good time. Last week I was in Washington DC and was at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. And there in the book store was Evolution. I took a picture and posted it to Facebook. It was the first that Daniel had heard of it being for sale there. Good news for him.
Also relating to Daniel, I disqualified one of my orignal short-list picks - Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, in part because it was fiction (Though that didn't stop me from replacing Death from the Skies with Arcadia.) and in part because Daniel recently discussed it in pretty much the same context I felt qualified it.
Once we went off the air I thought of three more books that I wish I had thought of bringing up in my honourable mentions.
As a memorial to Benoit Mandlebrot I could have mentioned Chaos by James Gleick which was pretty much the first hard science book I ever tackled (and loved and was fascinated by) and arguably resulted in me being the science advocate I am today. Most skeptics get Demon Haunted World. I get Gleick. I didn't choose it as I haven't read it in nearly twenty years and that makes me rusty enough that I didn't feel confident in my ability to talk about it for four minutes.
One book several of my polled friends came up with was Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. This has been on my "I must get around to reading that" list forever and I actually bought a copy in hopes of being able to read it in time for the show... but I only got about a quarter of the way in. It is fascinating thus far, but I didn't feel like I should champion something I hadn't really grokked.
Lastly, was another book I hadn't read, but was on the "I must get around to reading that" list. I was reminded about it on my Smithsonian trip, in this case at the Air and Space Museum. Gene Krantz's Failure is Not an Option. Krantz is ther Ed Harris character from Apollo 13 - do I need to say more? Tell me that isn't going to be an amazing auto biography.
So, there you have it. I doubt that at this late date that'll help anyone make a good Christmas gift-pick for someone... unless you're grabbing me a copy of Failure is Not an Option... but I felt like a bit more effort, detail and illumination was in order. Not just the scatter-gun effect.
Happy Jesuspalooza, everyone!
As always the show was fun to be on. I wish we could have got more discussion in than we did, but it was a very full show as it was.
I often come out the other end of these events feeling like I was at best a shotgun of information. Perhaps I had some impact if I was aimed at the appropriate target, but even then I was all over the place. So I figured I'd take a little bit of time to mention my books (as well as the books I had on my shortlist that other guests spoke about.
When I was asked to be on the show I polled some friends as to what books I should talk about. Only one made the final list, but several appeared on my shortlist and I'll touch on them below. I automatically nixed all Sagan books. I figured he was a shoe in - and sure enough two Sagan books were mentioned by other guests. Contact and Demon Haunted World. I also considered the Cosmos companion, and Broca's Brain.
First up, my actual four picks for the show:
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
I mentioned on the show that when I was asked to do the show I polled a few friends to see what they came up with. I actually didn't use a single one of their suggestions except this one - which I had already thought of. But every single one of them included this in their list. I was actually surprised that none of the other guests mentioned it.
This is totally gateway-drug territory. I don't think I've ever read a science book that covers so much in such an enjoyable fashion. It's very much 'sci-light' but that is it's charm. Since it's publication it has gone slightly out of date - as I mentioned on the show the first two chapters alone have information that has changed since the book was written, but errata for that and other mistakes is easily available on-line.
While Bryson does get into a patina of explanation of science that ranges from the beginnong of the universe to the evolution of man, the heart of this book is really the stories behind the discoveries. He delves deep into the quirks of the scientists and the history behind those who made parallel yet unheralded discoveries or those upon whose gigantic shoulders the heros of science stood upon.
It is at the same time funny and fascinating... something I'm informed that Bryson fans find to be his stock-in-trade, though I must admit that after trying several of his other books based on the promise of this one, I haven't found a single other one of his books that I've been able to finish.
The Transparent Society by Dr. David Brin
David Brin is serious man-crush territory for me. I think he is the greatest living science fiction writer, he maintains an excellent blog, and YouTube channel, has a resume that includes CalTech and the JPL, had the jam to follow in Asimov's shoes and (ulp!) contribute to the Foundation series, and building upon the thinking in the Transparent Society has become one of the world's leading voices in the on-going discussion about privacy, transparency and freedom.
I hardly know where to begin with this book. It covers a lot of territory and it's hard for me to talk about it without drifting into my own feelings about the issues herein. Some of it is scary - but that is exactly why it is important. Being over 12 years old by now there are parts of this book that are self-evident - but that is part of it's strength. You find yourself looking at the things he has got right and considering the portions that most rub you the wrong way with greater gravity.
I think this book is important to a world that is filled with citizens in denial and/or paranoia and not enough in a well reasoned middle.
Wikipedia sums it up with quotes from Brin, that the book is ultimately a proponent of a world where:
"most of the people, knowing most of what's going on, most of the time," would only be an extension of what already gave us the Enlightenment, freedom and privacy. By comparison, he asks what the alternative would be: "To pass privacy laws that will be enforced by elites, and trust them to refrain from looking at us?"Brin is also the originator of the term "citokate" (I've lost track of whether it came from Trasparent Society or his blog first.) Which every skeptic should have in their vocabulary.
Arcadia by Tom Stoppard
The thing about Arcadia that I most failed to illuminate on the show is that it is a work of such rich complexity that subsequent readings (or viewings - it is a play, after all) never fail to open up new layers of understanding.
Tom Stoppard is one of the truly most amazing playwrights of our time. While the average Jane may not be familiar with his name, they more than likely know of a film he won an Academy Award for - Shakespeare in Love. The whimsical, multi-faceted treatment he gives the Bard is akin to the reverence he gives mathematics (and thermo-dynamics, and chaos, and fluid-dynamics, and determinism, and and and....) in Arcadia.
The play actually takes place in two times (but the same place) simultaneously at a country house in Derbyshire, as a set of modern academics attempt to untie the events of roughly a 180 years previously which the audience is also party to and see unfold in tandem. All kinds of clever elements connect both times, but the favourite has got to be one of the simplest - a live pet turtle who roams freely on the desk that makes up the primary set-piece. The turtle is the same one in each time-period, simply 180 years difference in it's age.
No real spoilers here - this is a play that needs to be discovered. And should it coax you to explore the nature of re-iterative mathematics in the process, so much the better.
The Physics of the Buffyverse - by Jennifer Ouellette
Here's another excellent gateway-drug book. I suppose it's rather self-evident that being a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan is a useful prerequisite (though I suppose not entirely necessary - but one would have to ask "why would you bother?") to reading this book. In fact, a warning is certainly in order. If you are a Buffy fan who is not complete on the two TV series (the comic books do not factor) then this book will spoil key plot details right through to the final season of each, and it won't waste much time getting around to doing so, so don't even tease yourself it you are serious about not getting spoiled.
I think I may have done this book a disservice on the show. Like Brief History... it is pretty much sci-light. But Ouellette does a better job of getting into the finer points of the science science she covers than Bryson does. I know a fair bit of general science, and I learned from this book. Sometimes the Buffy-based examples actually give a perspective that helps clarify some details of physics that isn't quite so intuitive, and in other cases I simply learned some basic trivia facts that had previously passed me by - for example, I had no idea that elements above Iron were heavier than their atomic number, while those below were lighter.
In Buffy-speak: This book is big on the easy-learny.
Which brings us to the other books of note...
I included Imagining Head-Smashed-In by Jack Brink in my end-of-show honourable mentions. Very cool book. Sort of forensic archeological historic storytelling about the buffalo hunters of the Northern Great Plains - specifically at Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump.
My fellow live panellists (as opposed to the pre-recorded ones - the other possible parsing of that phrase is too much to bear) each chose a book I want to single out.
Nicole Gugliucci - the Noisy Astronomer - selected Dr. Phil Plait's Death from the Skies, which is a metric fuck-ton of awesome. It's the book that inspired Dr. Plait's TV show Bad Universe and is one of those rare laugh out loud science books. He looks at a dozen aspects of astronomy through the lens of a Hollywood conceit - "the world is going to end because of 'X'" - and then looks at the real science behind it. For a related but entirely separate taste, check out his analysis of Armageddon. Indeed I had this book on my original four list, but figured the astronomer should get to talk about the astronomy book, so I put up no fight and replaced it with Arcadia.
Dana Blumrosen chose The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, which I haven't read, but has been on a long list of "I must get around to reading that" titles since I heard about it and Henrietta Lacks on Radio Lab's (which everyone should listen to) Famous Tumors episode.
Also relating to Daniel, I disqualified one of my orignal short-list picks - Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, in part because it was fiction (Though that didn't stop me from replacing Death from the Skies with Arcadia.) and in part because Daniel recently discussed it in pretty much the same context I felt qualified it.
Once we went off the air I thought of three more books that I wish I had thought of bringing up in my honourable mentions.
As a memorial to Benoit Mandlebrot I could have mentioned Chaos by James Gleick which was pretty much the first hard science book I ever tackled (and loved and was fascinated by) and arguably resulted in me being the science advocate I am today. Most skeptics get Demon Haunted World. I get Gleick. I didn't choose it as I haven't read it in nearly twenty years and that makes me rusty enough that I didn't feel confident in my ability to talk about it for four minutes.
One book several of my polled friends came up with was Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. This has been on my "I must get around to reading that" list forever and I actually bought a copy in hopes of being able to read it in time for the show... but I only got about a quarter of the way in. It is fascinating thus far, but I didn't feel like I should champion something I hadn't really grokked.
Lastly, was another book I hadn't read, but was on the "I must get around to reading that" list. I was reminded about it on my Smithsonian trip, in this case at the Air and Space Museum. Gene Krantz's Failure is Not an Option. Krantz is ther Ed Harris character from Apollo 13 - do I need to say more? Tell me that isn't going to be an amazing auto biography.
So, there you have it. I doubt that at this late date that'll help anyone make a good Christmas gift-pick for someone... unless you're grabbing me a copy of Failure is Not an Option... but I felt like a bit more effort, detail and illumination was in order. Not just the scatter-gun effect.
Happy Jesuspalooza, everyone!
Friday, December 17, 2010
Real Vaccination Injury
This is a few weeks back now...
It was time for our baby daughter's first vaccination.
Jodie joked a lot about how she wouldn't let her child be given autism by injection. Her beliefs pretty much fall in the skeptical spectrum, though she doesn't wear the badge. Fair enough. Many of us are in relationships with people who are basically skeptics but don't self-identify as such.
Anyhow...
Jodie & I got our flu shots.... which bruised her ARM for about a day, and in my case, the pain was gone about a second after the needle came back out. I admit, I'm not good with needles. Most of my pain was in the anticipation.
When it was December's (our daughter) turn, the doctor had Jodie hold her still. She is a squirmy little kid, so it was the best bet.
Three needles. Ten (if I recall correctly) vaccines.
The most trouble she had or has had since...?
Being held still for so long by Mom. Just sayin'.
It was time for our baby daughter's first vaccination.
Jodie joked a lot about how she wouldn't let her child be given autism by injection. Her beliefs pretty much fall in the skeptical spectrum, though she doesn't wear the badge. Fair enough. Many of us are in relationships with people who are basically skeptics but don't self-identify as such.
Anyhow...
Jodie & I got our flu shots.... which bruised her ARM for about a day, and in my case, the pain was gone about a second after the needle came back out. I admit, I'm not good with needles. Most of my pain was in the anticipation.
When it was December's (our daughter) turn, the doctor had Jodie hold her still. She is a squirmy little kid, so it was the best bet.
Three needles. Ten (if I recall correctly) vaccines.
The most trouble she had or has had since...?
Being held still for so long by Mom. Just sayin'.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
A Change of Direction
Obviously, this fatherhood thing is cutting well into my ability to keep up with skeptical blogging. While I do continue to consider myself an ardent skeptic, there are a host of things that I do put ahead of skepticism in my life and fatherhood has totally upset the cart in such a way that doing much more than attending SitP and reading a few scattered blog posts and listening to some podcasts when I've had time has really been all I could muster.
But when I am out and about it the world I keep seeing things that pique my skeptical instincts....
And not getting around to saying something about it has been kind of annoying me.
So it is time to do something about it!
I finally joined the smart-phone world about a week before I became a Dad... why I haven't (before now) set it up so I can blog directly from it when I have the opportunity... well I guess I just never thought of it until today.
Most of the skeptical thoughts I have I have while I am out and about in the world, so really it only makes sense! The thoughts will be freshest and if I act immediately I don't have to rely on the clearly faulty combination of my memory and a free moment at home to get the blogging done.
So here's hoping this plan works... 'cause if it doesn't it could be months or even years before I get back around to it!
Oh... and on a totally side personal skeptical note...
I'm not disappearing ENTIRELY from the community - 'cause they keep pulling me back in! Ah... but seriously... I'll be on a special episode of Skeptically Speaking on December 17th. Would you believe... of the 3 (I think) appearances I've made on Skeptically Speaking precisely zero of them thus far have been live. I'd make a joke about Desiree being scared of having me on without the ability to bleep me out, but not only is it not much of a joke, but to any degree that it is a joke, we've worn it out between the two of us already.
But when I am out and about it the world I keep seeing things that pique my skeptical instincts....
And not getting around to saying something about it has been kind of annoying me.
So it is time to do something about it!
I finally joined the smart-phone world about a week before I became a Dad... why I haven't (before now) set it up so I can blog directly from it when I have the opportunity... well I guess I just never thought of it until today.
Most of the skeptical thoughts I have I have while I am out and about in the world, so really it only makes sense! The thoughts will be freshest and if I act immediately I don't have to rely on the clearly faulty combination of my memory and a free moment at home to get the blogging done.
So here's hoping this plan works... 'cause if it doesn't it could be months or even years before I get back around to it!
Oh... and on a totally side personal skeptical note...
I'm not disappearing ENTIRELY from the community - 'cause they keep pulling me back in! Ah... but seriously... I'll be on a special episode of Skeptically Speaking on December 17th. Would you believe... of the 3 (I think) appearances I've made on Skeptically Speaking precisely zero of them thus far have been live. I'd make a joke about Desiree being scared of having me on without the ability to bleep me out, but not only is it not much of a joke, but to any degree that it is a joke, we've worn it out between the two of us already.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Ethics for Skeptics
Okay. New plan.
I'm really not getting a lot of time for commentary - obviously. Fatherhood is not ridiculously taxing, but I already didn't have a lot of time.
But there is always stuff I think should be propogated, even if I haven't time for much added thought.
So I'm going to make an effort to send that stuff out - even if all I can add is a line or two of thinking.
For starters, here is a Statement of Ethical Principles for Skeptics from the Greenwood blog.
It is clearly declared to be a first draft (and even if it were we'd quickly find ourselves in the "you can't make me" territory that was part and parcel of the War Over Nice.
A few things leap out at me as being issue-worthy:
3a) Don’t overstate your case. Caveat your statements appropriately.
I'll agree with the first part for the most part - no time to get into the really nitty gritty of when entertainment value in order to maintain your audience may trump the absolute interpretation of that. But the second part... sigh... caveats are death when trying to reach the scientifically challenged. It is a sure fire way to bore the living shit out of them and thus lose them. Let the actual science speak to the precise truth - it is our job to propogate the message as far and wide as possible.
For the most part the satire, humour, use of force and personal attacks portions are all in line with my position. They may be (heh) overstated and too cautionary but as a starting point it's a good beginning.
11b) Be aware of, and in control of, your own emotions.
Again I agree completely on the surface. But I suspect that the author's intent is that we should always be calm and kind. Perhaps not, but I think that the easy interpretation of this in that manner leads us straight down the "passionless automatons" route that was at the centre of much of the early debate that followed Phil Plait's DBAD speech.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm really not getting a lot of time for commentary - obviously. Fatherhood is not ridiculously taxing, but I already didn't have a lot of time.
But there is always stuff I think should be propogated, even if I haven't time for much added thought.
So I'm going to make an effort to send that stuff out - even if all I can add is a line or two of thinking.
For starters, here is a Statement of Ethical Principles for Skeptics from the Greenwood blog.
It is clearly declared to be a first draft (and even if it were we'd quickly find ourselves in the "you can't make me" territory that was part and parcel of the War Over Nice.
A few things leap out at me as being issue-worthy:
3a) Don’t overstate your case. Caveat your statements appropriately.
I'll agree with the first part for the most part - no time to get into the really nitty gritty of when entertainment value in order to maintain your audience may trump the absolute interpretation of that. But the second part... sigh... caveats are death when trying to reach the scientifically challenged. It is a sure fire way to bore the living shit out of them and thus lose them. Let the actual science speak to the precise truth - it is our job to propogate the message as far and wide as possible.
For the most part the satire, humour, use of force and personal attacks portions are all in line with my position. They may be (heh) overstated and too cautionary but as a starting point it's a good beginning.
11b) Be aware of, and in control of, your own emotions.
Again I agree completely on the surface. But I suspect that the author's intent is that we should always be calm and kind. Perhaps not, but I think that the easy interpretation of this in that manner leads us straight down the "passionless automatons" route that was at the centre of much of the early debate that followed Phil Plait's DBAD speech.
I'm just sayin'.
Friday, August 27, 2010
There's a Dick Joke in Somewhere in this Title
I can't do it. I just can't.
I really wish I could be up to my armpits in what has become in my mind one of the most unlikely debates in the skeptisphere. Or more to the point, I can't believe how much vehement toothgnashing has risen over this, and I feel like I ought to be participating much more than I am.
It was my intention to put out a token response - as I did in my last post - and catch up with the results in a few weeks or months after I am acclimatized to being a father. But (due largely to being tweeted by none other than Dr. Phil and Daniel Loxton) that post single handedly became my most read post ever and the 150 minutes following it being posted was the best month for hits this blog has ever seen. So now my appetite has be whetted... and it seems I have a some time to kill before daddy-hood descends upon me, and I've got a video that is taking some time rendering, so I can't really do "real" work right now anyway... so its time for some more thoughts. (MESSAGE FROM MY FUTURE SELF - This really is just a bunch of half-assembled musings on thoughts from the last few days.)
If you check out the comments on the latest Skeptic Blog post by skepticism's civil-shepherd, Daniel Loxton it seems that the debate is shifting into the question of "what exactly is a 'dick?'" - though there are plenty of other side-battles going on. (Is PZ a dick? Did Phil mean PZ? Did PZ mean PZ? Was Phil being a dick, calling people dicks?) And I'm beginning to think that the real root of the issue falls in the word. Daniel encourages us not to get hung up on the word - and that is probably a good idea... but it's probably too late.
I get that Phil was referencing the DBAD meme as per Wil Wheaton. As he was speaking to a geek-skewed crowd that was, on the surface, a sound choice... but it seems to have backfired. Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what "being a dick" is, and not many of them align - particularly on opposite sides of the debate. (And hey, I live the consequences of a similar choice, having made liberal use of the term "asshole skeptic.")
It has been said - just scroll through the comments to Daniel's post for examples - that Phil phailed to be specific. Not naming names is politically understandable, but has not helped. But some narrower parameters than what he did say about what he means by being a dick would have helped... a lot. He does point out in the second part of his follow up that he "talk[ed] specifically about people who are insulting and demeaning." But that has been drowned out by the word... "DICK."
We all have our own interpretation of what that entails. Some of us, as per Barb Drescher (I spoke to several people who admitted to fleeting thoughts that they had prompted this speech somehow and I could not help feeling this way myself. That is testimony to the timeliness of it.) felt, listening to it that we might be "part of the problem" (if you accept that it it a problem). Others are presumed to being looking down from their place amoungst the angels, coming up with their own uncharitable definitions. And probably most people fall into the sub-category of imagining that there is some ill-defined cadre of pooh-pooh-ers who are perched up on their higher-moral-ground casting judgement out of fingers that only point in one direction... and we are dispensing shame upon ourselves for what we imagine the consensus opinion of "being a dick" is. ...or maybe I'm just projecting. Is it any wonder people are frustrated?
But really, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what Phil meant, or tried to mean, 'cause clearly that message was eclipsed by what everyone else put upon it themselves and there's likely nothing he can do now, that will change that. Your definition of being a dick may be as mild as "assuming a negative vocal temperment" or "displaying sub-textual disapproval"; or as extreme as "calling someone a baby-raper to their face and not allowing them an opportunity for rebuttal." (I am not quoting anyone specifically, BTW.) But your target may have a different opinion, and a third-party observer may have a third definition. Which doesn't make reacting appropriately impossible, but it complicates things, and having to perform for the lowest common denominator is usually a recipe for mediocrity. So I guess I don't really know what we are expected to do.
For starters even the best of my better angels got their vocabulary from Guns 'n' Roses. And there is an oft mis-understood (though not amoungst skeptics of course... right?) belief surrounding the ad hominem fallacy that just because a person calls someone a bad name (like a "dick", for example) that that invalidates their argument. (Phil is NOT saying this, BTW.) The ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy if the argument follows that a person is wrong because they are a dick (or whatever.) That's a bit of a tangent, but I think the edges of it are banging up around the perimeter of this debate.
Skepticism is frustrating territory. (Indeed, right now I'm really only writing (and by now rambling) because I am deep in the black-waters of a high "why the fuck are we having this discussion?" sea.)
Okay, reeling my thought process back in now...
Despite Phil's efforts to define and promote his definition of being a dick, the simple fact that this argument will not settle down into a definition speaks to the fact that there is a continuum of potential dickishness to be debated. Are Penn and Teller dicks? What kind of dicks? How about Crislip's not-as-scathing-as-he -thinks-but-the-intention-to-ridcule-is-there diatribes? What about that Asshole Skeptic guy? Or the second smugiest person on the planet next to Kevin Spacey, Brian Dunning? Ya know, sometimes even Evan "too nice to be a skeptic" Bernstein is a dick in some people's eyes.
With so many flavours of dick to suck on (yeah, I went there) why are we even trying to limit this to the "don't call people bad-names" definition? Like it or not, it is human nature to want to "kick the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." I maintain that eliminating dickishness amoungst skeptics is as syssiphian as any grander skeptical goal, and that trying to do anything more than ameliorate the most egregious examples is to waste a lot of better-used effort on fruitless wheel-spinning.
Now, I'm not a scientist of any stripe. But one of the articles cited as evidence ('cause we all reached for our "wheres your evidence?" guns that ridicule is not an effective tool doesn't appear in my mind to be as damning towards "jeer pressure" (their term) as the olive branch corps would have you believe... at least not from the abstract.
I'm not a psychologist. But I am qualified to speak to another segment of communication. Entertainment, narrative and the role of conflict within. (For those who don't already know, I am a writer, film-maker and award-winning playwright.) One of the sub-goals of skeptics is to maintain the attention of the people we are trying to reach. Anyone who has written drama or comedy succesfully will tell you how rare it is to craft a scene that holds anyone's attention if it doesn't have conflict in it. Just try and name a film - I don't even have to qualify that with "a box-office hit" or "a film that you enjoy." There will be precious few if any. Someone might try to invalidate my point by noting that skeptical out-reach is closer to documentary... but the notion persists. The most pervasive documentaries all hold a the same commonality - conflict. "Will the funny fat-man convince GM to keep jobs in Flint?" "Can the cute penguin survive it's Odyssian journey?" "Will eating only McDonald's food kill the film's director?" "Will those brave wheel-chair athletes beat those nasty Canadians at the Para-lympics?" Conflict is compelling.
Anyhow... that is a discussion for a different day.
But I will point out that this particular increasingly ironic conflict in our ranks is definitely holding the attention of many skeptics.......or maybe I'm just projecting.
I really wish I could be up to my armpits in what has become in my mind one of the most unlikely debates in the skeptisphere. Or more to the point, I can't believe how much vehement toothgnashing has risen over this, and I feel like I ought to be participating much more than I am.
It was my intention to put out a token response - as I did in my last post - and catch up with the results in a few weeks or months after I am acclimatized to being a father. But (due largely to being tweeted by none other than Dr. Phil and Daniel Loxton) that post single handedly became my most read post ever and the 150 minutes following it being posted was the best month for hits this blog has ever seen. So now my appetite has be whetted... and it seems I have a some time to kill before daddy-hood descends upon me, and I've got a video that is taking some time rendering, so I can't really do "real" work right now anyway... so its time for some more thoughts. (MESSAGE FROM MY FUTURE SELF - This really is just a bunch of half-assembled musings on thoughts from the last few days.)
If you check out the comments on the latest Skeptic Blog post by skepticism's civil-shepherd, Daniel Loxton it seems that the debate is shifting into the question of "what exactly is a 'dick?'" - though there are plenty of other side-battles going on. (Is PZ a dick? Did Phil mean PZ? Did PZ mean PZ? Was Phil being a dick, calling people dicks?) And I'm beginning to think that the real root of the issue falls in the word. Daniel encourages us not to get hung up on the word - and that is probably a good idea... but it's probably too late.
I get that Phil was referencing the DBAD meme as per Wil Wheaton. As he was speaking to a geek-skewed crowd that was, on the surface, a sound choice... but it seems to have backfired. Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what "being a dick" is, and not many of them align - particularly on opposite sides of the debate. (And hey, I live the consequences of a similar choice, having made liberal use of the term "asshole skeptic.")
It has been said - just scroll through the comments to Daniel's post for examples - that Phil phailed to be specific. Not naming names is politically understandable, but has not helped. But some narrower parameters than what he did say about what he means by being a dick would have helped... a lot. He does point out in the second part of his follow up that he "talk[ed] specifically about people who are insulting and demeaning." But that has been drowned out by the word... "DICK."
We all have our own interpretation of what that entails. Some of us, as per Barb Drescher (I spoke to several people who admitted to fleeting thoughts that they had prompted this speech somehow and I could not help feeling this way myself. That is testimony to the timeliness of it.) felt, listening to it that we might be "part of the problem" (if you accept that it it a problem). Others are presumed to being looking down from their place amoungst the angels, coming up with their own uncharitable definitions. And probably most people fall into the sub-category of imagining that there is some ill-defined cadre of pooh-pooh-ers who are perched up on their higher-moral-ground casting judgement out of fingers that only point in one direction... and we are dispensing shame upon ourselves for what we imagine the consensus opinion of "being a dick" is. ...or maybe I'm just projecting. Is it any wonder people are frustrated?
But really, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what Phil meant, or tried to mean, 'cause clearly that message was eclipsed by what everyone else put upon it themselves and there's likely nothing he can do now, that will change that. Your definition of being a dick may be as mild as "assuming a negative vocal temperment" or "displaying sub-textual disapproval"; or as extreme as "calling someone a baby-raper to their face and not allowing them an opportunity for rebuttal." (I am not quoting anyone specifically, BTW.) But your target may have a different opinion, and a third-party observer may have a third definition. Which doesn't make reacting appropriately impossible, but it complicates things, and having to perform for the lowest common denominator is usually a recipe for mediocrity. So I guess I don't really know what we are expected to do.
For starters even the best of my better angels got their vocabulary from Guns 'n' Roses. And there is an oft mis-understood (though not amoungst skeptics of course... right?) belief surrounding the ad hominem fallacy that just because a person calls someone a bad name (like a "dick", for example) that that invalidates their argument. (Phil is NOT saying this, BTW.) The ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy if the argument follows that a person is wrong because they are a dick (or whatever.) That's a bit of a tangent, but I think the edges of it are banging up around the perimeter of this debate.
Skepticism is frustrating territory. (Indeed, right now I'm really only writing (and by now rambling) because I am deep in the black-waters of a high "why the fuck are we having this discussion?" sea.)
Okay, reeling my thought process back in now...
Despite Phil's efforts to define and promote his definition of being a dick, the simple fact that this argument will not settle down into a definition speaks to the fact that there is a continuum of potential dickishness to be debated. Are Penn and Teller dicks? What kind of dicks? How about Crislip's not-as-scathing-as-he -thinks-but-the-intention-to-ridcule-is-there diatribes? What about that Asshole Skeptic guy? Or the second smugiest person on the planet next to Kevin Spacey, Brian Dunning? Ya know, sometimes even Evan "too nice to be a skeptic" Bernstein is a dick in some people's eyes.
With so many flavours of dick to suck on (yeah, I went there) why are we even trying to limit this to the "don't call people bad-names" definition? Like it or not, it is human nature to want to "kick the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." I maintain that eliminating dickishness amoungst skeptics is as syssiphian as any grander skeptical goal, and that trying to do anything more than ameliorate the most egregious examples is to waste a lot of better-used effort on fruitless wheel-spinning.
Now, I'm not a scientist of any stripe. But one of the articles cited as evidence ('cause we all reached for our "wheres your evidence?" guns that ridicule is not an effective tool doesn't appear in my mind to be as damning towards "jeer pressure" (their term) as the olive branch corps would have you believe... at least not from the abstract.
Results of both experiments showed that participants who viewed ridicule of others were more conforming and more afraid of failing than were those who viewed self-ridicule or no ridicule.That is not the same as thinking for yourself, but it does not exclude it. The abstract actually states that "Creativity was not influenced by the humor manipulation." In any case, I am a layman interpreting an abstract, and even if my incomplete, civilian interpretation of the summary is accurate, it's just one study. Perhaps someone who is qualified can better levy an interpretation?
I'm not a psychologist. But I am qualified to speak to another segment of communication. Entertainment, narrative and the role of conflict within. (For those who don't already know, I am a writer, film-maker and award-winning playwright.) One of the sub-goals of skeptics is to maintain the attention of the people we are trying to reach. Anyone who has written drama or comedy succesfully will tell you how rare it is to craft a scene that holds anyone's attention if it doesn't have conflict in it. Just try and name a film - I don't even have to qualify that with "a box-office hit" or "a film that you enjoy." There will be precious few if any. Someone might try to invalidate my point by noting that skeptical out-reach is closer to documentary... but the notion persists. The most pervasive documentaries all hold a the same commonality - conflict. "Will the funny fat-man convince GM to keep jobs in Flint?" "Can the cute penguin survive it's Odyssian journey?" "Will eating only McDonald's food kill the film's director?" "Will those brave wheel-chair athletes beat those nasty Canadians at the Para-lympics?" Conflict is compelling.
Anyhow... that is a discussion for a different day.
But I will point out that this particular increasingly ironic conflict in our ranks is definitely holding the attention of many skeptics.......or maybe I'm just projecting.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Don't Be a Dork about Being a Dick
When I first heard from returning attendees about the over-arching theme that developed at TAM8 this year, largely focussed on Phil Plait's now infamous (in skeptical circles) "Don't Be a Dick" talk, my first thought was "damn it all! This was clearly NOT the year for me to miss TAM." (Though I have to admit I did miss it for the right reasons.)
Last week at Skeptic in the Pub here in Vancouver we watched the (then freshly posted) video of the talk. I was actually in the other room when skepticism's ultimate fan-boy, Fred "Nowoo" Bremmer, came out and said "you're going to want to watch this." He was right. And predictably when we were finished the first comment was directed at the "Asshole Skeptic"... "So, Kennedy...."
Before I get too deep into this I want to make something clear (again): The name of this blog is misleading. Though I began in a more strident place I have backed away from the extremities. I DO NOT advocate being a jerk to individuals on a face to face basis. Berating people is not an effective way of reaching the people you are hollering at.
From that you can probably extrapolate that my position is roughly that I agree with much of what Phil says. But think he is missing some important points and angles.
I won't get into a lot of details, as by now this part of the conversation has become well-worn. But a few things that spring to mind: the passion of a furious argument can communicate the value of the argument (more so to by-standers than to the target of the anger); we will never reach everyone by winning over people one at a time, occassionally one (preferably unreachable) credulite must be thrown under the bus in order to stop the whole vehicle from going over the cliff... which is to say you can afford to lose one person permanently if it means demonstrating to others how wrong the target is and thus winning a net-positive amount of people's rationality (how we measure that, I admit I do not know, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the practice, it merely makes it harder to assess your results); someone needs to be able to stand toe to toe and be heard above (or at least beside) those who don't argue in good faith, and speak on a level that cuts to the bottom line on skeptical issues and speaks to values, 'cause most people don't give a shit about the double-blind, randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed data (even typing it out is boring); more on boring - cutting to the chase and eviscerating an opponent's argument in a public fashion is good entertainment, and people want to be entertained... if the message that their way of thinking needs re-assesment piggy-backs on that, so much the better; if some of us make the rest of you look less "out there" (pushing the Overton window) we are ultimately moving the cause forward.
I could go on, but I'm already repeating things I have said in previous posts and things that have already come up in this specific debate.
This morning there was a bit of a snit on Twitter between Daniel Loxton and PZ Meyers. It seems to have run out of steam in the time I've been writing this. But the debate is far from over.
So, here is what I am seeing. (But keep in mind there is a LOT out there that has been written on this subject in the past five weeks - and even more this past week - so I really can't claim to have seen it all.)
To simplify things, there are two sides. The Olive Branchers are staunchly in the Don't Be a Dick camp, and the Asshole Skeptics are in the "Be a Dick When it Works" camp. Generally speaking both are doing a lot of "show me the evidence that you are right!" shouting and neither is ponying up with research of their own. Or when they do it is narrow and only marginally connected.
The Twitter-spat this morning typified a lot of what I've been seeing. The Olive Branch skeptics seem to be arguing (still) that taking people on face to face is never going to win them over. While the Asshole Skeptics are saying "nyah nyah, you can't stop us!"
Simpilfying the debate like that is a bit of a strawman, but it is a LOT of what is going on. There is plenty of detail that falls outside of those boundaries, but much of that detail is irrelevant if we can address and solve the core argument, which frankly, is a bunch of B.S.
Yes, virtually all of us agree that being a dick to someone is never going to change their mind.
As Phil asks "what is your goal?" If your goal is to win over said opponent, then yes Phil, vitriol and venom is not the right approach. But in many cases when Asshole Skeptics employ vitriol and venom, their goal is not to win over that person, it is to affect the views of those watching the exchange. Sylvia Browne is never going to give in and admit she's full of crap, but making her look abjectly foolish will help those who are curious about her see that she is a fraud.
Phil states quite clearly that his goal is to show people how to think rationally. "Teach a man to fish..." he says. And he would not be the world class educator he is if he did it by harangueing people. Conversely, I would suggest Showtime would have pulled "Penn & Teller's Super-happy Coddle the Audience's Self-image Hour" after the first season.
Phil used the metaphor of a hammer and how to use it properly or you might destroy the wall. But there are different types of hammers for different jobs. Some hammers are even designed to destroy walls. Different vocations require a different set of hammers. A jeweller would never use a sledge-hammer to cut a diamond. A renovator would never use a jeweller's hammer to take down a wall. A renovator would hopefully never take down a supporting wall, and there is some skill in determining which walls are holding up the structure.
I've said this a dozen or more times in this blog, that wielding the tools in the Asshole Skeptic toolbox is not an easy game. Most people should not be doing it, or at least need to be doing it with extreme care. I know of what I speak. I have blown it myself. I was in a yelling match with a truther at SitP once where my buttons got pushed. I'm not proud of this. I'll say that again: I AM NOT PROUD OF THIS. That person has NEVER come back to SitP. I personally lost that person. But I did learn an object lesson in how easy it is to screw up. And I'll bet that just about everyone has found themselves arguing in unproductive manners at one time or another. Every skeptic has brought the house down upon themselves at one time or another by using the wrong tool on the wrong wall.
The issue is not that some skeptics act like dicks. It is that too many people who haven't taken the time to consider how best to communicate thier message behave like dicks, because it seems like the easy path. It seems to be simpler to mouth-off in defence of rational reality than to read up and get to the core of that reality. But it isn't. Anyone can come up with a nasty sounding expletive and call Jenny McCarthy a baby-killer. It IS that easy. But that is not skepticism. It looks like skepticism, 'cause yes, you are on the same side that rational thought would bring you to.
Being an effective asshole skeptic is tough. In order to do it well you not only need to know your way around the issues you discuss (as well or better than an Olive Branch skeptic would) but you also have to have a sense of when to best turn on the Dick and when to leave it alone. I don't claim to be an effective asshole skeptic, I just claim to have been thinking about it a lot over the past fifteen months or more.
Seeing PZ and Daniel duke it out this morning kind of hurt.
PZ is going to appear near the top of anyone's list of Asshole Skeptics. And for those of us who appreciate this brand of communication, we know that he does do a pretty good job of it. His default leans towards all-asshole all-the-time, but he is so accustomed to working in that space that he is an expert of whether to use an 8lb, a 12lb or a 15lb sledge hammer. He is not the sort of person who needs to be lectured by Phil Plait or any Olive Branch skeptic. He is exactly the sort who is going to say "nyah nyah you can't stop me" back. (And indeed practically did to Daniel.) And I don't think that kind of in-fighting is necessary.
The "you can't stop me" argument is pretty much a given. And I think the Olive Branch skeptics need to cede that ground where those who accompish theior goals well with it are concerned.
Thus far in the debate there seems to me to be as much evidence that being a dick works (when wll targetted and wielded) as that it doesn't, so why are we wasting our time with this when we can be arguing people who really are responsible for (passively) killing babies, and showing them for who the really are?
When it comes to fighting the "dicks," what we need to be doing is counselling the loose-cannons who are habitually spitting vitriol for vitriol's sake. Those who are feeding their bitterness at how stupid humanity is (and there is a lot of stupidity and consequent bitterness) into a feedback loop, rather than going out and learning more about how to debate, how to apply their wit, and how to do effective research on subjects they aren't experts at. Those are the people who need to either stop being dicks, or learn how to do it much more effectively and quit getting in the way losing as many people as they win cheap "gotcha" points.
Let's use the tools we are already accustomed to wielding expertly and effectively. 'Cause seriously, if we are hell bent on first settling this internal fracas of fighting words we'll never get on to fighting the woo.
Last week at Skeptic in the Pub here in Vancouver we watched the (then freshly posted) video of the talk. I was actually in the other room when skepticism's ultimate fan-boy, Fred "Nowoo" Bremmer, came out and said "you're going to want to watch this." He was right. And predictably when we were finished the first comment was directed at the "Asshole Skeptic"... "So, Kennedy...."
Before I get too deep into this I want to make something clear (again): The name of this blog is misleading. Though I began in a more strident place I have backed away from the extremities. I DO NOT advocate being a jerk to individuals on a face to face basis. Berating people is not an effective way of reaching the people you are hollering at.
From that you can probably extrapolate that my position is roughly that I agree with much of what Phil says. But think he is missing some important points and angles.
I won't get into a lot of details, as by now this part of the conversation has become well-worn. But a few things that spring to mind: the passion of a furious argument can communicate the value of the argument (more so to by-standers than to the target of the anger); we will never reach everyone by winning over people one at a time, occassionally one (preferably unreachable) credulite must be thrown under the bus in order to stop the whole vehicle from going over the cliff... which is to say you can afford to lose one person permanently if it means demonstrating to others how wrong the target is and thus winning a net-positive amount of people's rationality (how we measure that, I admit I do not know, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the practice, it merely makes it harder to assess your results); someone needs to be able to stand toe to toe and be heard above (or at least beside) those who don't argue in good faith, and speak on a level that cuts to the bottom line on skeptical issues and speaks to values, 'cause most people don't give a shit about the double-blind, randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed data (even typing it out is boring); more on boring - cutting to the chase and eviscerating an opponent's argument in a public fashion is good entertainment, and people want to be entertained... if the message that their way of thinking needs re-assesment piggy-backs on that, so much the better; if some of us make the rest of you look less "out there" (pushing the Overton window) we are ultimately moving the cause forward.
I could go on, but I'm already repeating things I have said in previous posts and things that have already come up in this specific debate.
This morning there was a bit of a snit on Twitter between Daniel Loxton and PZ Meyers. It seems to have run out of steam in the time I've been writing this. But the debate is far from over.
So, here is what I am seeing. (But keep in mind there is a LOT out there that has been written on this subject in the past five weeks - and even more this past week - so I really can't claim to have seen it all.)
To simplify things, there are two sides. The Olive Branchers are staunchly in the Don't Be a Dick camp, and the Asshole Skeptics are in the "Be a Dick When it Works" camp. Generally speaking both are doing a lot of "show me the evidence that you are right!" shouting and neither is ponying up with research of their own. Or when they do it is narrow and only marginally connected.
The Twitter-spat this morning typified a lot of what I've been seeing. The Olive Branch skeptics seem to be arguing (still) that taking people on face to face is never going to win them over. While the Asshole Skeptics are saying "nyah nyah, you can't stop us!"
Simpilfying the debate like that is a bit of a strawman, but it is a LOT of what is going on. There is plenty of detail that falls outside of those boundaries, but much of that detail is irrelevant if we can address and solve the core argument, which frankly, is a bunch of B.S.
Yes, virtually all of us agree that being a dick to someone is never going to change their mind.
As Phil asks "what is your goal?" If your goal is to win over said opponent, then yes Phil, vitriol and venom is not the right approach. But in many cases when Asshole Skeptics employ vitriol and venom, their goal is not to win over that person, it is to affect the views of those watching the exchange. Sylvia Browne is never going to give in and admit she's full of crap, but making her look abjectly foolish will help those who are curious about her see that she is a fraud.
Phil states quite clearly that his goal is to show people how to think rationally. "Teach a man to fish..." he says. And he would not be the world class educator he is if he did it by harangueing people. Conversely, I would suggest Showtime would have pulled "Penn & Teller's Super-happy Coddle the Audience's Self-image Hour" after the first season.
Phil used the metaphor of a hammer and how to use it properly or you might destroy the wall. But there are different types of hammers for different jobs. Some hammers are even designed to destroy walls. Different vocations require a different set of hammers. A jeweller would never use a sledge-hammer to cut a diamond. A renovator would never use a jeweller's hammer to take down a wall. A renovator would hopefully never take down a supporting wall, and there is some skill in determining which walls are holding up the structure.
I've said this a dozen or more times in this blog, that wielding the tools in the Asshole Skeptic toolbox is not an easy game. Most people should not be doing it, or at least need to be doing it with extreme care. I know of what I speak. I have blown it myself. I was in a yelling match with a truther at SitP once where my buttons got pushed. I'm not proud of this. I'll say that again: I AM NOT PROUD OF THIS. That person has NEVER come back to SitP. I personally lost that person. But I did learn an object lesson in how easy it is to screw up. And I'll bet that just about everyone has found themselves arguing in unproductive manners at one time or another. Every skeptic has brought the house down upon themselves at one time or another by using the wrong tool on the wrong wall.
The issue is not that some skeptics act like dicks. It is that too many people who haven't taken the time to consider how best to communicate thier message behave like dicks, because it seems like the easy path. It seems to be simpler to mouth-off in defence of rational reality than to read up and get to the core of that reality. But it isn't. Anyone can come up with a nasty sounding expletive and call Jenny McCarthy a baby-killer. It IS that easy. But that is not skepticism. It looks like skepticism, 'cause yes, you are on the same side that rational thought would bring you to.
Being an effective asshole skeptic is tough. In order to do it well you not only need to know your way around the issues you discuss (as well or better than an Olive Branch skeptic would) but you also have to have a sense of when to best turn on the Dick and when to leave it alone. I don't claim to be an effective asshole skeptic, I just claim to have been thinking about it a lot over the past fifteen months or more.
Seeing PZ and Daniel duke it out this morning kind of hurt.
PZ is going to appear near the top of anyone's list of Asshole Skeptics. And for those of us who appreciate this brand of communication, we know that he does do a pretty good job of it. His default leans towards all-asshole all-the-time, but he is so accustomed to working in that space that he is an expert of whether to use an 8lb, a 12lb or a 15lb sledge hammer. He is not the sort of person who needs to be lectured by Phil Plait or any Olive Branch skeptic. He is exactly the sort who is going to say "nyah nyah you can't stop me" back. (And indeed practically did to Daniel.) And I don't think that kind of in-fighting is necessary.
The "you can't stop me" argument is pretty much a given. And I think the Olive Branch skeptics need to cede that ground where those who accompish theior goals well with it are concerned.
Thus far in the debate there seems to me to be as much evidence that being a dick works (when wll targetted and wielded) as that it doesn't, so why are we wasting our time with this when we can be arguing people who really are responsible for (passively) killing babies, and showing them for who the really are?
When it comes to fighting the "dicks," what we need to be doing is counselling the loose-cannons who are habitually spitting vitriol for vitriol's sake. Those who are feeding their bitterness at how stupid humanity is (and there is a lot of stupidity and consequent bitterness) into a feedback loop, rather than going out and learning more about how to debate, how to apply their wit, and how to do effective research on subjects they aren't experts at. Those are the people who need to either stop being dicks, or learn how to do it much more effectively and quit getting in the way losing as many people as they win cheap "gotcha" points.
Let's use the tools we are already accustomed to wielding expertly and effectively. 'Cause seriously, if we are hell bent on first settling this internal fracas of fighting words we'll never get on to fighting the woo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
