

Why I am no longer a skeptic - Alex3917
http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html

======
archgoon
Don't miss out on his enemies list at the end, including Randall Munroe.

Short version: There are issues with the skeptical movement. I don't want to
self identify with, nor associate with them. Scientists are well respected and
have huge political clout, so there is no point in actively defending science.

~~~
wisty
What a tool.

His main issue with Randall Munroe seems to be that by drawing smart, capable
female characters; Randall is opressing innocent female stick-figures, by
coercing them into his own ideal. I guess he should also be tried for war
crimes, after all the stick figures he's killed off. (Yes, you can twist words
till the make all sorts of stupid conclusions. I guess the OP has already made
that point, though).

~~~
Alex3917
I think his criticism is that all of XKCD's female characters fit the
archetype of what TV Tropes calls the Manic Pixie Dream Girl:

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGi...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGirl)

This isn't female empowerment, it's just a masturbatory trope that's being
(allegedly) used as a shortcut to doing actual storytelling or character
development.

I don't really take any position on his use of female characters. But I will
say that the whole "Science: It works, bitches" tagline that Randall has
popularized is perhaps the ultimate example of the intellectual laziness and
lack of curiosity that currently characterize the self-proclaimed skeptic
community. This is exactly what he's talking about when he talks about how
skeptics uncritically embrace logical positivism despite the fact that it's
been completely rejected by the philosophical community.

~~~
wisty
That might say a little about Randall and maybe his readership, but I don't
see how it's a real problem. Some women may feel pressured to raise their arms
in the air, and act enthusiastic. It's not a repeal of the Nineteenth
Amendment. It's not even 30 seconds of prime time TV. And Randall has done a
lot of notionally feminist cartoons. I'm sure a hardline feminist can pick
holes in his work, but I still think he's going to shift _most_ of his readers
towards a more feminist viewpoint; especially the sad cases who think that
women can't do math.

Feminists seem to think that because sexism has caused a lot of bad things
(women barred from universities, few female CEOs, etc); anything that can be
accused of being remotely sexist is an objectively bad thing. That's just
braindead. Once you put things in perspective, I think xkcd is OK.

Science _does_ work. It doesn't work for everything. If you can point me in
the direction of a philosophical framework that you think has a remote chance
of getting me the right answer faster, please do. I'm curious, most skeptics
are - it's just that we've been let down by some shady operators (i.e. pretty
much anyone claiming that they can teach you _how_ to think) and don't want to
get taken in again.

I'm not saying the skeptics community doesn't have some sweaty, closed-minded
geeks who like nothing better than sneering and intellectual mud-wrestling. I
don't hang out on skeptic forums, so I wouldn't really know. I suppose he's
just mentioning them as an _ad hominem_ attack on logical positivism, to gives
some weight to the rest of the post.

~~~
Alex3917
The fact that science often 'works' in no way makes the assumptions of
scientism correct. In terms of modern philosophical frameworks, I think the
best answer right now is probably some version of this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmodernism>

~~~
wisty
From one of the linked papers, by Mike Cole, the guy who seems to be cited the
most:

>> My argument is not that capitalism cannot in theory be made more democratic
or humane.

This is an incredibly revealing statement.

I'm a big fan of Steve Keen, an Australian economist who won some award for
predicting the GFC (<http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/>). He's a _huge_
critic of mainstream neo-liberal economists, claiming they use bad mathematics
to prove theorems that don't work in theory (once you correct the mathematical
errors) or practice (if you look at the data). He also has a chapter in his
book on why Marx was wrong, but I'm not up to it yet.

While agree with some of the points of Transmodernism, it seems to be more of
a destination than a way of travelling. The only concrete methodology seems to
be a deep suspicion against The Man (or neo-liberal agenda, as it's called
now).

The IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, and so on aren't bad because they want
to be. They are bad because they are following theoretically and empirically
flawed theories. They aren't propped up by governments because doing so helps
keep the elite in power, governments actually believe that there's no real
alternative. The problem is, academic economists (and worse, government onces)
like to be safe and conservative. Non-mainstream economists are simply frozen
out of the dialogue, like positivists are in post-modern academic societies.
Which is quite a problem, when economists are dealing with billions of
dollars, and millions of lives.

~~~
Alex3917
"The only concrete methodology seems to be a deep suspicion against The Man"

It's more like taking the best of different ideas and different cultures
throughout history, and discarding the flawed parts. E.g. it favors the market
economies, but is against an economy comprised entirely of one giant
unregulated market. It makes use of the scientific method, but isn't based on
scientism. It supports mainstream medical research, but doesn't presuppose
that double blind clinical trials of molecular entities conducted using the
medical model are the only way of demonstrating efficacy, etc.

------
llambda
I feel like there is a good deal to be said against skepticism as defined by
the author of this article. However the tone of this post borders strongly on
the political and seems to be little more than a diatribe; we see Dawkins is
highlighted with a quotation attacking a fellow skeptic. This section is a
poorly constructed ad hominem[1] attack. If we want to criticize skepticism we
don't need to rely on such easy targets and certainly can in fact actually
focus on skepticism as an ideology rather than skepticism as a set of people
who are self-proclaimed practitioners of it.

As such I've flagged this submission because I don't really think this kind of
thing has a place on HN; we aren't here to discuss political or sociopolitical
ideologies, this is intrinsically off-topic for this community. Sure, it may
be interesting, and I have to admit I side with the author, but nonetheless,
this is at best a rant littered with logical fallacies and is only loosely
tied to the discussions of startups and hacking.

That's my two cents.

[1] "As is typical of hatemongers, Dawkins is careful not to name his target
directly: instead, he works with insinuation -- though that said, calling the
victim "Muslima" is particularly crass."

Addendum: let's keep politics (yes, socio-political and ideological discourse
in general is meant to be included when I say "politics") off of HN, please.
:)

~~~
rmc
_This section is a poorly constructed ad hominem[1] attack. If we want to
criticize skepticism_

But that's the point! It's supposed to be an ad hominem attack. The author, in
this essay, is not attacking skepticism, but the Skeptic Community. The author
is saying that they do not want to be in the Skeptic Community because of X,
Y, Z. And if you're attacking the Skeptic Community then, of course you should
use ad hominem attacks, and talk about what certain people said.

If you want to talk about how Skepticism is bad, then you should talk about
Skepticism, not the Skeptic Community. If you want to talk about how the
Skeptic Community is bad, then you should talk about the Skeptic Community,
not Skepticism.

~~~
Alex3917
he does talk a lot about the flaws with skepticism itself, but I agree that
this is primarily an attack on the skeptic community.

------
true_religion
> Too often, the skeptic nerd who tries to display his women-friendly
> credentials ends up revealing himself only as a sexist creep. He's all in
> favour of women, as long as they satisfy his own ideals of what a woman
> should be.

Wait... let's flip the script here a little bit.

If some man only likes and approves of other men that fit his ideals, is he
being sexist? What does sex even have to do with this?

------
smoyer
Why spend all that time defining who you aren't? Put that same energy into
creating something of worth!

------
scotty79
I think attitude presented by this guy is nailed here:

<http://xkcd.com/774/>

------
derleth
> I still have no faith in anything supernatural, mystical, psychical or
> spiritual. I still regard the scientific method as the best way to model
> reality, and reason as the best way to uncover truth.

... then you're still a skeptic.

~~~
jriddycuz
You're missing the distinction he is drawing between belief and identity. He
is specifically saying that, despite his beliefs lining up with those espoused
by most self-professed skeptics, he no longer identifies as one himself,
because he finds problems with using it as an identity.

~~~
derleth
I get his distinction, I simply deny that the problems he cites are any part
of being a skeptic.

