
Why I am no longer a skeptic - colinprince
http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html
======
fingerprinter
I typically watch from the periphery of the skeptic community online (reddit,
blogs, etc), so take what I say with a grain of salt.

First, how can someone "no longer be a skeptic"? What does that even mean?

Second, when you reference the skepchick elevator incident as your first and
most critical point, you immediately lose credibility. The entire sequence of
events and what actually transpired in that event have been gone over again
and again and again and at the end of the day, there was nothing to it. So
when you make this the basis of your claim, there isn't much there.

Third, rest of the post is rather rambly and, frankly, incoherent. It isn't
worth taking point-by-point, though the general feel is such that I'm not
convinced the author has much authority and knowledge on the subjects to speak
about them.

Lastly, just as a word of warning to people who might strongly identify with
skepticism or what not, but strawmen abound and it might just enrage you.
You've been warned ;)

------
short_circut
I assume you wanted to point out the sexism part. Is there sexism in the
"skeptic" community? Certainly, just as there is in just about every
community. The assumption this author seems to be making is that feminism is
beyond reproach which simply is not true. It certainly should be held to the
same critical standards as any other theory. Feminism is not perfect and it
certainly has some serious problems. Don't confuse egalitarianism and
rejection of certain feminist ideals as sexism. To use feminist's own
language, often times the things that the antifeminists attack in feminism are
things that can be considered products of patriarchy. Sexism among internet
skeptics is no more rampant than sexism in other internet communities. Anyone
with more than a passing familiarity should know this. That doesn't make it
right. It is just fact.

~~~
milesskorpen
Critiques are one thing — the outright hostility I see from the skeptic
communities towards feminism & feminists goes to another level. I absolutely
believe that, even if not more prevalent, sexist attitudes are voiced more
loudly and more self-righteously in the internet skeptic community than
outside it.

~~~
short_circut
I think you may have missed my point slightly. Often critique of feminism is
held as inherently sexist whether or not that is true. People view the
skeptical attack on female privilege and/or rejection of certain aspects of
claimed male privilege as sexist. My point being that sometimes people confuse
skepticism with sexism. In my mind the unfortunate thing is that some of the
big names in the skeptic communities make these criticisms and then later show
their misandric or misogynist sides.

~~~
milesskorpen
No, I don't think I did. Critiques of feminism is _rarely_ held inherently
sexist, in my experience, unless the people doing the critiquing start with
open hostility.

------
stiff
Looks like he became a plain old hater instead, for one the bits on sexism in
XKCD are completely ridiculous...

------
arsen1k1
The author of this essay also has controversial things to say about Bayesians
[1] and bronies and masculinity [2].

1\.
[http://plover.net/~bonds/cultofbayes.html](http://plover.net/~bonds/cultofbayes.html)

2\.
[http://plover.net/~bonds/newsincerity.html](http://plover.net/~bonds/newsincerity.html)

------
dionidium
This is mostly an exercise in begging the question. He assumes it's obvious,
for example, that the war in Iraq was not justified and that, therefore,
Hitchens is clearly a thug for supporting it. He's ranting against things he
just doesn't like, in other words. But I don't really care if you _like_
Dawkins; you have to show me why you think he's _wrong_.

------
withad
As someone who probably would identify as a skeptic, I agree with some of the
premises here but certainly not his conclusion. He makes some good points
about the skeptic community and the serious issues it has, as well as the
issues with some of its figureheads. I've never been a big fan of Dawkins but
his response to Rebecca Watson over the elevator story was downright hateful.
I've always seen Dawkins as part of the militant atheist crowd more than a
skeptic but there's a lot more crossover there than perhaps there should be.
Phil Plait laid out a lot of this stuff in his "Don't Be A Dick" talk at TAM 8
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk)),
which I'd highly recommend.

Fair enough, I can see all that as a reason to distance yourself from the
skeptical community. There are a lot of communities I should, in theory, have
something in common with (gamer culture, for instance, or his own example of
/r/atheism) that I reject because I can't stand much of their behaviour.

However, the author goes too far in outright rejecting skepticism and
dismissing its value. I think it is important that there's a group of people
protesting homeopathy's use in hospitals and disproving the claims of anti-
vaccers and blocking creationist teaching laws. You think psychics provide a
little bit of entertainment or false hope? Just a few weeks ago, Amanda Berry
was found alive, years after Sylvia Browne had bluntly told her mother that
she was dead. Berry's mother died in the interim, thinking her daughter had
been murdered.

And the rant on Reagan and bankers comes out of nowhere and commits much the
same fallacy as Dawkins "Muslima" comment (minus the Islamaphobia). The idea
that, just because there are bigger problems out there, no one should deal
with the smaller ones. If someone chooses to devote their time to exposing
alt. med. con artists, should we really be mad that they're not curing cancer
or investigating financial fraud? It's absurd.

There are several factual errors as well. Right after his complaint that
skeptics simply take the word of big pharma, he mentions Ben Goldacre but he
doesn't mention that Goldacre is a prominent opponent of big pharma research
practices, as are many skeptics, and he's the author of an entire book about
them, Bad Pharma. He greatly overstates the use of alternative medicine and
seems to have the common misunderstanding that the placebo effect is something
you only get from treatments that do nothing. A scam artist treating you
nicely gives the same benefit as a doctor treating you nicely, but the doctor
will also provide some actual working medicine while he's at it.

~~~
mdisraeli
Most balanced comment in this entire thread. Thank you for your thoughts.

------
squozzer
I enjoy reading Bond's stuff, he's enviably erudite. But he tends to NOT say
what he is (as an identity) now, even though he's pretty clear about what he
is not.

A somewhat analogous awakening in my life came when I realized that scientists
(ones with real PhDs, grants, and grad assistant) were really quite petty and
insecure (like the rest of us.)

~~~
aridiculous
>>> "I enjoy reading Bond's stuff, he's enviably erudite. But he tends to NOT
say what he is (as an identity) now, even though he's pretty clear about what
he is not."

There is a role for the critic in society who illuminates the positions of
others. I've noticed a pressure in contemporary society to be "for something".
That kind of accusation sometimes is used to dominate or discredit the
opponent and end the debate.

In fact, being "for something" or "having a position" is not always
appropriate. It keeps the brain loose while generating new ideas. True
scientists know this.

------
epsylon
This should be titled "Why I am no longer part of the skeptic community".

I find many of his claims absolutely ludicrous, with broad generalizations,
personal attacks, and failure to recognize what he criticizes in his own
argument. The angry tone of the piece doesn't make it particularly enjoyable
to read, either.

------
jacobparker
I hadn't seen this post in awhile. Thanks for posting it!

Might want to add a (2011) to the title (judging by the "comments" link at the
bottom.)

EDIT: Maybe also remove the anchor tag - but perhaps that was intentional?

------
4891
It's funny, I actually agree 100% with the author on skpeticism being blind to
the fact that we only understand reality via mental models (all models are
wrong, but some are useful, as they say), and science being more of a social
process with it's own biases and ossified traditions than a grand search for
capital-t Truth.

And yet, I also disagree completely with his politics. I used to be both a
skeptic and a progressive. Now I'm spiritual and a reactionary. I believe that
drugs, meditation and religious experiences can help us access aspects of
reality that are normally invisible. I also believe that democracy is an
outdated system of government, and the particular brand of feminism the author
defends is just another batshit crazy ideology. (I'm all for the Sheryl
Sandbergs of the world, but when people start talking about patriarchy and
privilege they might as well be talking about sin and Satan for all I care).

Also, why are people on the left so keen to defend Islam at the drop of a hat?
Is it just an "enemy of my enemy" kind of deal? (We hate America, Radical
Islamists hate America, hey, these Muslims seem pretty smart doncha know!) I
have respect for FEMEN and other second-wave feminist handouts who at least
try and keep their worldview consisistent and criticise the treatment of women
in Muslim countries.

I don't know what that makes me, other than "odd".

------
beagle1809
A horrid, ignorant and painfully hypocritical article. The author is clearly
still a skeptic (if we are using the actual definition of the word) and is
also guilty of the same kind of ignorant hate speech towards skeptics as that
of which he accuses skeptics of towards religiosity and feminism.

------
iterationx
This link pops up from time to time.

Skeptic in this context is slang for a atheist who has no ideas that deviate
from mainline US Democratic party; Against sexism, against Islam-o-phobia,
"pro science"

yawn. you are a product of your environment.

------
qwerta
Is there a way to filter posts like this? I understand things like "why I am
no longer using Java" are here. But this is just off-topic.

~~~
DanBC
The best you can do without plug ins is to flag it and hope other people join
in.

------
papsosouid
Being a skeptic means you are someone who is skeptical. It does not come with
a membership to a club. Just because you dislike some other people who are
skeptical, does not mean skeptics are bad and you need to stop being one. I am
sure you dislike some people who wear pants too, but you continue to wear
pants anyways.

All that said, his assessment of the people he dislikes is incredibly
superficial and childish. What exactly was the point that you hoped to make by
posting it?

~~~
jgh
I think in this case he means something akin to Skeptic with a capital 'S'.
Wherein they identify themselves as Skeptics in order to identify themselves
as belonging to a particularly vocal group of people who are skeptical about
religion and other super-natural stuff.

It's the same reason I won't usually go around calling myself an Atheist,
because while I am an atheist, I do not wish to be associated with the people
who go around crying about every nativity scene or commandment stone that
shows up in the public sphere. Granted I'm not about to go write a blog post
listing my reasons for why I don't identify with the more vocal group of
Atheists/Skeptics.

