GC British guy debating US sceptic.

[Dadalus]

In case anyone finds it interesting...

twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1477004076877496328?t=wcSZsecghAvIRo2WozuheQ&s=19

It looks like the idea is to have a long exchange of letters between them, only the opening statements have been made so far.

I just don't get why a movement of self-identified sceptics would not immediately be sceptical about the bold claim that a man literally is a woman because he says so. Is there really any more evidence for genderism than there is for homeopathy or ghosts?

The 'skeptic' movement is very US centric. I'm British so can only speak as an outsider, but the idea that an outside authority can legally dispute the identity you have chosen for yourself seems to feel very wrong for Americans. I don't think people really thought this principle would ever be applied to sex, but it's so central that to say 'in this case there is an objective standard that can make you wrong about who you say you are' causes hackles to rise.

@PermanentTemporary

How does 'let's leave out the sports issue' mean they're demanding evidence? It suggests they are trying to remove evidence that would make it a much shorter debate and much harder for them to win.

What they like is poking fun at creationists. Not losing. They hate losing.

One possibility might just be that this guy is stupid.

But I think that maybe what he's trying to do is whittle down the context to what he sees as the most basic question, which is about identity. That's not on the face of it a bad technique, and actually I don't think trying to argue this from the scientific side even requires the sports stuff. The science on gender is not very strong. And even more basic is the questions about how we use language or see natural classes, and it's not at all clear to me he is really able to even start from a recognizable solid place on those questions.

Interesting, @PermanentTemporary.

Thank you very much Marzipano and santaclawsserviette for taking the time to write those explanatory and interesting posts!

[quote DinoDora]We've talked a lot about straw men arguments before here, this article (point 3) from the bbc really struck me:

Sorry I can't copy the relevant bits onto here for some reason.

Three ways to be more rational this year www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59740588[/quote]
Reading the screenshot, it really stuck me that the start-

'Humans are primates, often the goal is to become the alpha debator.'

Immediately said to me in neon - Male.

Of course this is generalising. And nature nurture who knows.

In my long long experience though, those who often forget the point of the conversation and focus on WINNING, in ways that make it just totally obvious that's what's going on, are invariably chaps.

I've seen SO MUCH dick swinging at work it's ridiculous.

Interestingly the way it's done varies between situations. Role, work culture, industry.

Also it varies depending on relative position in hierarchy.

And on sex of the person they are 'debating'. And male/female/social hierarchy comes in massively.

During my work life, at a very rough finger in the air. I reckon of the men I've worked with in a team/function, when the lead/manager has been female, 60-70% have been mildly to extremely uncomfortable/ unhappy with/ openly pissed off with the situation.

Also in my experience, in my years of observation it's been to do with simply hating not being able to push opinions/ 'win' discussions where they want different approach to boss by the methods usually used to squish women who have the temerity to disagree or say no without layers of nicey nicey sugar coating.

The whole debating/ arguing etc with men when you're a woman (worse if you're a girl!). Is a minefield, because of deep societal norms around sex roles.

I was thinking about this last night.
Never heard of skeptic movement before I read this thread yesterday, thanks to those who posted links etc.

Last night I was thinking ok sceptical. Pointless being sceptical of everything.
Most people sceptical of certain things due to experience with the source, at odds with what you know from experience reading news etc, or doesn't ring true given where came from.

For me some things I've been sceptical about (examples not to get into on the thread!)-

Groups who have deeply held opinions that are very specific doing things to 'help' people regarding the thing, and claim the help is neutral.

Pretty much everything from most politicians!

Survey, study, analysis findings from groups with massive agenda.

Proclamations off innocence from my family when find 6 pack of my favourite crisps has been polished off.

These modern skeptics often seem to approach science like it's a religion... Very dogmatic, and completely blind to the flawed (i.e. nowhere near as objective and rational and unbiased as the ideals we aspire to) processes through which science is made.

As a scientist, I find their blind faith disturbing. I'm more of an old fashioned sceptic myself (think Descartes and methodical doubt, minus the dodgy "Proof of God" bit)

So I was thinking ok the USA should be coming at this because sceptical personally, or it's a general area of interest to skeptical movement, about the current conflicting views, rationales etc around transgender people as a group.

Tbc sorry keep losing posts

The USA person first letter, he says that sex 'designation' is based on a mix of genes hormones etc. (I have put the quoted at end of this post).

When did he realise that male female as broadly defined groups are just not as straightforward as dick/ fanny/ sperm / egg/etc?

Age 8? 14? 25? Or has this fact that sex is designated and ill defined come to him more recently? Like around the time transgender as a topic crossed his path?

And assuming that his understanding of male female before that was the old widely accepted one. IE want a puppy? Need a penis dog and a vagina dog pretty obvious...

Then when he came across something NEW ie the idea that human beings as a species cannot be categorised generally into two sex groups, it's waaay more complicated than that..

Did he apply his sceptical approach to the NEW claim, IE that sex as a binary for humans, mammals, loads other animals plants etc is not valid?
That the way that humans have understood it as the most basic difference between humans for thousands upon thousands of years all over the world is inadequate?

If not...

And yet he's 'skeptical' of the definition up until 10 mins ago having any value...

Then he's not a 'Skeptic'.

He's a man with massive bias, credulity, blind spots in thinking, unquestioning on a matter which screams for questions.

And having read his letters, and despite the logical * FACT that he is about as sceptical as a tube of smarties. He clearly sees himself as intellectually superior, a man of objectivity, rationality, excellent judgement and impressive communication skills.

Hellooooo bog standard fella with over inflated opinion of himself...

*(IF there is loads of writing on when why and how he decided sex complicated/ designated I take it all back!).

Quote I was thinking of last night, how sceptical was he when heard that?!

'Sex designation is based on some mix of biological features like genes, hormones, and body parts, though there is often inconsistency in which feature is the truly essential feature,'

Yes, the first post by Aaron (US dude) was all over the place! Doesn’t seem to grasp science.

I don't think Brian Cox is a member of the skeptical community in this sense surely?

He's a scientist doing what scientists do. Iyswim! Dawkin just doing his thing as well (very badly, when he moves away from his subject!).

Anyway.

Really interested reading the posts around scientific skepticism.

I see Santa on this thread and from previous conversations I think your area, approach is around philosophy, epistemology, that sort of thing.

My approach is from different angle, I'm a sciency mathsy person, physics at uni, that's what suits my way of thinking.

So this scientific skepticism thing is about questioning, looking to see how strong evidence is etc around certain areas of science.... mainly around things like homeopathy, supernatural etc though.

But those things aren't science in the first place. As on thread, pseudoscience.

So if I've understood correctly, they're skeptical of the validity of things that are either obvious bollocks, or, there's fuck all in the way of body of reliable evidence pointing at there being something to it.

I don't get it. What's the point? I mean I'm more than sceptical of Icke and lizards. But why would I need to be in a community which has a surely misleading name, to successfully argue that the royal family aren't space lizards?

Sorry I'm struggling with that bit.

Shouldn't they be called 'community to expose nonsensical beliefs & pseudoscience..?

'Scientific skepticism tends to assume as true a philosophical position called positivism, and a fairly strong version of that. Essentially what it says is that the only things that exist are material things, the physical universe, and we can know them through observation. And by extension, through science'

@RobotValkyrie

These modern skeptics often seem to approach science like it's a religion... Very dogmatic, and completely blind to the flawed (i.e. nowhere near as objective and rational and unbiased as the ideals we aspire to) processes through which science is made.

As a scientist, I find their blind faith disturbing. I'm more of an old fashioned sceptic myself (think Descartes and methodical doubt, minus the dodgy "Proof of God" bit)

It's happening everywhere. People pushing to undermine science wholesale.

While using their fucking phones to communicate on international websites, sending messages to it through thin air via invisible means, and getting pissed off if it's slower than the usual more or less instantaneous.

I mean for FUCKS SAKE!

How do you think that works then eh? Who were the people who allowed for this to be a thing?

Wizards? Aliens? The Stargate SG-1 team? Time travellers?

This really really fucks me off. Obviously!

I would say there is an element of the skeptic/debunking community that really is tilting at windmills. Maybe the greater part. There might be some small value for a few people in, for example, talking about why homeopathy doesn't have a scientific basis. Especially if it's done really carefully and not in a "you are such a moron" way. But for most people who believe these things, it's not mostly about scientific evidence.

And then as we see when it comes to more scientifically controversial things like gender identity, or vaccines are another example, they are often really very bad at even debunking because, as someone said above, they tend to treat it dogmatically. However they do try and do these things, so I guess in their own minds are able. Just as they will try and address things like questions around metaphysics which are well outside of what science can say much about.

I am not sure if Brian Cox is at all associated with this, but there are some celebrity scientists who are in fact real scientists who are to some extent. Richard Dawkins for one, Tyson, even Hawkings all are or were rather philosophically naive with a tendency to assume that all things are within the realm of science. I don't know whether Cox would fit into that group or not. Interestingly one who did, but changed his mind, was Bill Nye. He publicly made some rather disparaging comments about the role of philosophy, and someone wrote him and told him he should really look into it more, and I gather he became quite interested in how philosophy and science are related.

I just meant have they said they are allied with sceptic/Skeptic community themselves?

Or do they just see things and think eh? Have a think and give their views why it's not right?

I'd say the latter esp for Cox. I can't imagine him having time for a group that's as described here.

Dawkins has too much ego I'd think to say I'm part of this movement.
And he's an evolutionary biologist so... Well there's plenty who consider that area to be a science. That's another debate!

The other thing I'm a bit ??? about is-

There are a set of scientific principles that are fundamentally important to scientists. They are the guidelines that exist to (try to) keep scientific study etc on the straight and narrow, as it were.

There are many reasons that they are so important, one is to avoid undermining general confidence in scientific output iyswim.

If scientists often released conclusions that were iffy, incorrect, related to a personal agenda etc then the whole field becomes questionable, less trustworthy etc.

One principle is to be sceptical. To keep questioning. Including your own work from the very start to the end.

Decent scientists question stuff they come across all the time. It's sort of inbuilt. Automatic.

And when something comes along that is just no good, rubbish, biased etc. Then sometimes that one gets up your nose so much you want to talk about it, get it off your chest.

A scientist being critical of a certain hypothesis, ... and any point through all the way to conclusion.

They aren't being 'Skeptical' to do with any movement, label, approach, or anything like that.

In fact they're often not being sceptical at all. They're just saying this is crap or this is wrong. And this is why.

Because that's an important part of the basic principles of science. It's what they DO iyswim

'There might be some small value for a few people in, for example, talking about why homeopathy doesn't have a scientific basis. Especially if it's done really carefully and not in a "you are such a moron" way. But for most people who believe these things, it's not mostly about scientific evidence.'

Understand your point,

Thing is though it IS a belief. Totally. It's about hope, essentially.

Saying you're a moron to someone who believes in it is just being a sod. They won't change mind, why do it? Unless eg being conned out of £££, or trying to treat serious treatable illness of child with that and no conventional medicine.

And I remember thinking about homeopathy in boots about 20 years ago and my thinking hasn't changed.

• When see a homeopath, norm is pretty long consultation (just googled 1-2 hours). Being able to sit down and have someone sympathetic discuss your problems for that long. Get into what's going on generally. Problems at home etc.

I imagine they see same person more than once.

That will make a lot of people feel better in itself, plenty ailments due to something situational.

• Placebo effect is bizarre, fascinating. Don't know much, just few bits here and there. Might look into! But from what I've read (and been told by a few docs), it seems to be a thing, even though no one knows how works.

If some people improve due to placebo effect. Then they've improved and that's good.

Overall. Essentially harmless. People who believe aren't going to stop. Possible some do benefit for reasons unrelated to drinking water.

I just can't get worked up over it.

Dawkins is related in that the New Atheist movement, if you remember that, was attached to the Skeptic movement. He had and maybe still has a web page with a forum that is mainly populated by people who see themselves as part of that group and at one time he seemed to have an interest in some of their debunking activities. He also tends to have that same logical positivist view and he has in some ways a very 19th century take on how "clean" science is. Although I wonder if he feels quite the same way now.

I think Dawkins really needs to stick to his area of interest.

Because he has posted such utter tripe over the years. Especially on women and children. Where he only succeeds in exposing that his confidence in his clear logical thinking. Is utterly unfounded.

I'm not particularly surprised he would have things to do with skeptical community USA. The only reason I thought he wouldn't was due to his huge ego!

He's just another of the crowds of men around who are incapable of even imagining, that on any topic, he's not just totally obviously right.

An evolutionary biologist worrying about how 'clean' (whatever he means by that) science is?

FFS also WTF etc etc

@CheeseMmmm

An evolutionary biologist worrying about how 'clean' (whatever he means by that) science is?

FFS also WTF etc etc

No, I mean that he thinks what science says is uncomplicated, no mess. He doesn't really seem to see or acknowledge that it's not some sort of system that runs in an idealized state, or even that there are disputes about how it works at a most basic level.

If that what he thinks then he's an fool, and no scientist.

And then as we see when it comes to more scientifically controversial things like gender identity, or vaccines are another example, they are often really very bad at even debunking because, as someone said above, they tend to treat it dogmatically. However they do try and do these things, so I guess in their own minds are able. Just as they will try and address things like questions around metaphysics which are well outside of what science can say much about.

YY.

Oh my word! I'm just catching up on those letters. US Guy is a bit strange isn't he. Is adding any data for clarity going to be dismissed as 'pivoting'?

He rambles on abou things being something that they aren't. or is that are? Can't tell because he uses that fine tactic, wordiness as obfuscation. Like more syllables = totes defended!

Like this little gem:

Given that you’ve argued trans women aren’t real, and that specific data points shouldn’t be argued, there’s no point in me getting into the stats about trans women in sports.

Hey bro! You, like, said transwomen dont't exist. So what's the problem, man?

TWAT! TWAT! TWAT!