Ken Perrott of New Zealand SciBlogs waded into the controversial Dawkins disinvitation, and wrote a load of typical bullshit. That is, he tries to logic all critics of Dawkins into some kind of fallacy, because they must be mistaken, and we cannot examine the flaws in Dawkins worldview without first dismissing everyone who disagrees with him as irrational. Therefore, suggesting that Dawkins has said some terrible things…
…is so mistaken I think only people who are already hostile or desperately searching for something to confirm their anti-Dawkins or anti-male bias would actually fall for it – or promote it. But that is the sort of thing we get on social media – especially Twitter.
This is the fallacy of faulty generalisation – or more precisely, faulty induction. Very often resorted to by people with a large axe to grind.
One problem here. None of the people he names were initially “anti-Dawkins” and none seem to be “anti-male”. It defies reality to make this accusation: the accurate generalization is that a lot of people in the atheist community were extraordinarily enthused to have a scientist of Dawkins’ stature promoting unbelief. He is still a huge draw at conferences, and look at me — I’ve been asked to introduce Dawkins at events, I’ve shared a stage with him a couple of times, I am definitely not nor have ever been “anti-Dawkins”. Yet I have been disillusioned by his gullible anti-social justice stance in spite of my bias in his favor.
And then, of course, it’s all Rebecca Watson’s fault, because she hates Richard Dawkins and evolutionary psychology. I’ve known Watson for a few years, and again, this was not a prior bias. This was a gradual and strengthening rejection of what they stand for, built on experience and evidence. When you’ve been blacklisted by Dawkins, I think it’s only rational to oppose him. As for Watson and evolutionary psychology…
I can’t help feeling there is a lot of bruised ego involved there – but lets stick with her logical fallacy. I have criticised her in the past for committing the fallacy of faulty generalisation. In that case her use of valid cases where studies in evolution psychology amounted to very poor science and bias confirmation (pop-psychology) to attribute that problem to the whole field of evolutionary psychology.
No. The problems are that EP’s premises are not valid: the undemonstrated brain modules, the bogus environment of evolutionary adaptedness
, the whole idea that the last ten thousand years of adaptation to agriculture and urban living don’t count. And then they hide behind the uncontroversial claim that the brain evolved every time someone questions their much more specific assumptions.
That Watson can also get so much mileage out of the truly appallingly awful pop psych studies is also a problem for EP: apparently, they are so undiscriminating and credulous that they won’t criticize their own.
And then Perrott goes after Massimo Pigliucci.
My point is that Massimo comments seem motivated by professional jealousy, rather than any real concern about the sceptic/atheist “movement.” He is being unprofessional to carry out a personal public campaign in this way. And he ends up looking foolish for that and his identification with the NECSS blunder (I have not seem any comment from Massimo on the later reinvitation which attempted to correct that blunder.)
Ah, the old “professional jealousy” argument. You’re only criticizing him because he’s smarter and more popular than you!
I have my differences with Pigliucci, but get real. He’s a successful and popular scientist and science popularizer, too, and suggesting that his substantial criticisms are purely the product of seething envy rather than genuine intellectual rigor and serious thought makes Perrott look foolish. And I say that as someone who disagrees with some of Pigliucci’s arguments while agreeing with others.
Oh well, I did learn something from that tripe. It turns out the retraction of the disinvitation of Dawkins was authored by Jamy Ian Swiss. But of course it was.
You might want to read Siouxsie Wiles, a fellow Kiwi, rather than Perrot. She points out the real problem with the attitudes that too many skeptics and atheists have.
Watson and Roth continue to be active in the atheist/skeptic community but many others have left because of the treatment they have received. It saddens me that Dawkins either doesn’t appear to understand the impact of his actions, or doesn’t care, and neither do his supporters. Perrott ends his post by implying that Watson and others are bullying extremists who bandy around words like “sexist” and “misogynist” to shut down important discussion. I disagree. They are valuable members of the atheist/skeptic community who have a different perspective from people like Dawkins and are actively working to make the community a more inclusive one. Watching the harassment feminists have received by people who identify themselves as critical thinkers also saddens me. It would be nice to see them apply those critical thinking skills to their idols as well as their ‘enemies’.
There is an authoritarian trend behind all the defenses of Dawkins — the idea that one Great Leader is too valuable to question, even if he is actively repelling a substantial number of precisely the people we need to broaden the reach of atheism. Atheism already has the avid support of scientists and manly patronizing men — speaking as one, I can assure you I will never lose confidence in my declarations that there are no gods — but picking up a privileged class that hasn’t had much use for religion anyway is no challenge. If we expect to grow beyond our little techno-scientific enclaves, and further, if our techno-scientific enclaves want to be more inclusive, we have to accept that we need greater depth.
And no, tempting as it is, manly patronizing men like me can’t simply explain to women, black people, Latin folk, American Indians, blue collar workers, etc., why they should find solidarity with our cause. Especially not when we’re sending the message that old white dudes get all the excuses for whatever they say. We members of the priesthood of Man Science need to step back and let others tell us what’s best for them.
Sometimes, letting go of control is the best and only way to learn.
This is my situation as well, and I would bet substantial money that it is this case for Rebecca Watson too. I remember one video before ElevatorGate where she was on speaking panel with AronRa and Dawkins and it was obvious that she liked him quite a lot.
And the answer to “how far are people willing to go to completely ignore the things that Dawkins does?” is this, this is how far.
Behold, the equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalalala, can’t hear you and you are ugly anyway!”.
Why is it that the idea of privilege is viewed, by the privileged one, as an attack and not as a challenge?
I am older (just got my AARP card). I am white. I am middle class and college educated. I am a professional. I am straight, cis-gendered, married, have two kids, a large American sedan and a mortgage. I am, by any definition, privileged. So if I am in a meeting and make a statement of preference, or explain why doing thus-and-such is a really bad idea, my input is automatically respected and listened to, even if it is outside my professional milieu. If a young black woman did the same thing in a meeting, she would be, to most in the meeting, grinding an ax.
Richard Dawkins has done some great things. He has also done (and said/written) some really stupid things. He can comment on anything, whether it is in his professional milieu or not, and be treated with respect. He will be listened to on any subject. Why? Because he is privileged. Which means that he has no axe to grind.
Those of us calling him out for his privileged positions, statements and writings are, for the most part, less privileged (those like me (and PZed) who recognize our privilege, are feminists, are pro-all-human rights, have surrendered our ‘privilege card’ and can safely be treated as sub-white-straight-male-educated-respected-men) which means that anything we say that is contrary to the dominant paradigm is, almost by definition, grinding an ax.
In US politics, big business and rich white men have an inordinate say in how the government operates because they can be fair, unbiased, and have no ax to grind. The poor, the working class, the unions and their members, women, minorities, have much less say in how the government operates because, since they disagree with big business and rich white men, they cannot be fair or unbiased because they have an ax to grind.
This is how privilege protects its own. Richard Dawkins, because of who he is, because of his background, his race, his education, his pale skin, his straight heterosexual cis-gendered preference, and because he supports the status quo, is assumed to have no bias, no ax to grind. Rebecca Watson, because of who she is, because of her sex and her hair, and because she does not support the status quo, is assumed to be biased and grinding an ax down to the handle.
All who are unquestionably supporting Dawkins and his seemingly never-ending foot-in-mouth disease, ask yourself this: if he were black, or a woman, or Latino, or had grown up on the wrong side of the tracks, and he came out with exactly the same idiocy — even idiocy supporting the status quo — would you still be defending him unquestionably?
Richard Dawkins, you’ve done some good shit. You’ve also done some real shit. Try listening to those upon whom you have shat.
Jamy Ian Swiss…of course I’m not surprised. I was told by a reliable source that Swiss called Rebecca Watson the c-word onstage at an event (sorry, I don’t know when or where). That the Novellas continue to work with him is a betrayal in and of itself.
I agree. That bruised ego is walking about with the name of Dawkins, who has a lot of sympathetic bruised egos furiously taking up for him, often in the way they know best, harrassing and threatening those who don’t meet their particular worldview.
Well said, but I’m becoming more certain that “actively repelling” is the goal, not “broadening the reach.” The giveaway is Jamy Ian Swiss, the fuck. I feel slimy just sharing a common lack of belief with him. With people like him having any say in the movement, it is clear that this is the movement they want.
A different movement — one that includes all those unsightly types you mention — dilutes it, makes it less predictable, makes Dawkins and Swiss less valuable because they have to compete with more voices, fresh new takes, and unique approaches. The more the voices the less the stage/camera time for them. They are not from the “High Tide Raises All Boats” school but instead the “I Got Mine So Fuck You” school.
Yeah. Well. Fuck them.
@kaboobie
If I should guess, I think the Novellas see themselves as being even-handed and welcoming. Trouble is, when you’re welcoming to assholes, you’re automatically no longer welcoming to decent people.
Sometimes I think the rifts aren’t quite deep enough.
Seems to me that Dawkins follows certain scripts taught to men of his (& maybe subsequent?) generations – the ones that go “Don’t back down,” “Never apologize, never explain”. It’s hard to have any back & forth with men whose self-hood seems to be riding on sticking to those scripts even when you like & respect the person in question & have a lot of positions in common.
What I wonder, Oh men of Dawkins (& maybe later) generations, is how some of you got caught in these scripts and some of you didn’t?
Off topic: I followed the link above to another link and found comments by J*hn Kw*k and to my delight he hasn’t changed a bit!
Delightful!
I used to be pro-Dawkins, then he repeatedly said utter drivel, now I am somewhat-anti-Dawkins*. The agent that moved my opinion of Dawkins from wholly positive to mostly negative is not some sort of anti-Dawkins zeitgeist, but merely Dawkins’ own words.
* I’d return to pro-Dawkins if he dropped gender and foreign policy from his commentary and simply became the evolution / naturalism / atheism proponent.
That footnote should probably read:
* I’d return to pro-Dawkins if he dropped gender and foreign policy from his commentary and simply returned to being the evolution / naturalism / atheism proponent.
Seriously, “anti-male bias”? It is scary to see how a phrase originating within the extreme woman hating fringe that is the MRA extremists has now been mainstreamed by seemingly ‘middle ground’ figures.
If Perrott had said “anti-white bias”, that comment alone would have gotten him in real hot water, and rightly so, and he probably would recognise it as the right-wing racist phrase it is, but if it is swapped out by another less privileged group he (and others on his side) suddenly seem unable to see it as the vile dog-whistle it is.
Dawkins behaviour on social media is being noticed in various places and by people that have nothing to do with “the movement”.
I watch a podcast (rhlstp) by British comedian Richard Herring.
He does a one on one interview, on stage, in a London theatre mostly with comedians but other interesting people.
It is a comedy podcast.
Herring is an atheist and was interviewing British broadcaster Richard Bacon who is also an atheist.
The Subject of Dawkins came up and they both agreed that his atheism stuff was great but he should stop the social media nonsense.
Dawkins is tainting his reputation and just isn’t within the bubble of “the movement”.
If I click that link, will there be anything of substance beyond the personal attacks?
As for the Evopsych defence: You know, at some point you should be able to defend that subject by presenting some well done studies AND show that they’re the mainstream, not the exception instead of just complaining that people look at all those bad studies…
People like Ken Perrott have a problem in that they are essentially cowards, but they can get away with it because they are part of the dominant social group.
One reason is due to something that I have mentioned around here before and that Perrott is another example of, whining about characterizations that people find insulting as “shutting down debate” without actually considering what the characterization unpacks into. When people use sexist, misogynist, racist and similar there are actually things in there that they are talking about. Did Perrott actually look at the features that people described as sexist and misogynist and say why they were invalid? I don’t see it beyond the assertion (more below) . Because they can only be shutting down debate if there is not sexism or misogyny present that that requires some analysis.
Secondly, I’ve finally gotten myself motivated enough to do a blog post on this situation with the video and while it is not done yet, I’m in the middle of breaking down the various theories of humor into something easy to follow along with. I’ve read enough to see that the claims that this video is only attacking a subset of feminists is total and utter bullshit. That claim is always offered as an assertion, I have yet to see anyone, including Dawkins, Nugent and now Perrott actually show what the features of the video are that indicate that it is pointed at a subset of feminists. What I do see in the video is:
*”I am a feminist” and “I am an Islamist” paired over and over and over, and the feminist caricatured there (Chanty Binx) has never been shown to have any of these characteristics beyond this bit of mockery. Nor has she been involved in any attempt to criticize criticism of Islamism that has been pointed out. The example like the last from a European feminist group that always gets trotted out is not having it’s arguments represented here at all from what I have seen. Satire requires actually confronting what someone is actually saying in it’s mockery.
*The things that the video attacks (inter-group humor as criticism is de facto conflict) are things that a majority or ALL feminists care about (depending on the specific) from what I can see. Things being problematic? Psychological triggers? Misogyny? Cultural norms and appropriation? Child abuse? Social justice? Campaigns against rape culture (slut walk)? Rape?
I have to seriously question one of two things here, the perceptual and reasoning abilities of Dawkins, Nugent and Perrott, or their honest in what they really believe about feminism.
*The name of the fucking video “Feminists Love Islamists”.
Given how invested these people are in their social authority and power, and how utterly shitty this all actually looks when someone actually looks at things instead of opines about them, I would expect some more people in positions of authority to have serious emotional reactions. Their personal characteristics as human beings are so shitty that they can do nothing else but deal with them seriously and honestly, or double down and emotionally collapse as the evidence piles up. I don’t want the latter, I can imagine that this situation has contributed to Dawkins’s stroke, but the harm they are doing by propagating this social sewage can not stand.
mond @ 13:
I know you’re paraphrasing, and it is good that Dawkins’ shit is being noticed more widely, but the characterisation of social media nonsense is fraught with problems. It’s yet another dismissal of those who keep trying to point out that constant harassment, bigotry, and attempts at exclusion are not minor problems.
*paraphrasing a song*
We have Bull Shit, right here in Atheist City
Which starts with BS, and rhymes with PS, which stands for Privilege ‘Splain’
Brother Ogvorbis asks @3: “Why is it that the idea of privilege is viewed, by the privileged one, as an attack and not as a challenge?”
I wonder if, when (as so often) that happens, it’s an outward manifestation of the “privileged one” in question suffering (‘internally’) the well-known Impostor Syndrome?
This idea just occurred to me and is probably not even wrong.
Brony:
Oh for fuck’s sake, stop. I’m so fucking sick of this qualifier I could spit. He’s a 74 year old man, and it’s hardly unusual for a 70something person to have a minor stroke. It’s bad enough that Dawkins, the press, and his cadre of harassers are ready to milk that to death, we don’t need to be doing it too.
@Caine
Fair enough. I’ll find a better way of getting at the fact that this is going to involve people in positions of authority becoming very stressed regardless of intent. Or I’ll just plan for people to use it as an excuse.
Leerudolph @ 18:
:Snort: Sorry, sorry, I just seriously doubt that’s a problem that Dawkins has – I could be wrong, of course, but I’d think someone who genuinely dealt with impostor syndrome might avoid the limelight, rather than constantly seek it out.
Because it’S relevant: If you’Re against no-platforming, maybe you’Re the special snowflake
Especially well written with regards to the questions of power and privilege
Giliell @ 22:
Excellent article, thanks for the link.
So that’s the new name for bigotry. Not remotely surprised that there’s a rational in it.
I don’t get how you can simultaneously be “Pro free speech, no restrictions” and then turn around and rail against “no-platforming”
Actions are a form of speech, and venues that choose not to invite and potentially pay people are exercising their right of free speech to make a statement about the speaker.
I’m not “anti Dawkins” I’m “anti some of the things Dawkins does.” If he stopped doing them, there’d be no anti- left.
The whole “anti-” ploy is irritating. I’m not sure what kind of fallacy it represents, but it’s kind of like a straw ad hominem: No, I said I was against Israel’s policies, that doesn’t make me anti-semitic. By setting the other person’s arguments up as a strawman they can try to dismiss them without engaging them.
Flip it around and it’d be like me saying “the people who support Dawkins are all anti-feminists” No, that’s not quite it. Thereare doubtless a bunch of those (just as there are doubtless a bunch of anti-semites who oppose everything Israel does) The people who are supporting Dawkins are probably thinking they’re supporting his brave resistance to browbeating – not that they’re being anti-feminists.
It takes a lot of thinky and we men aren’t very good at that.
@Brother Ogvorbis 3
In a general sense outside of specific people I think that there are different things that are going into the issue of reacting as if one is attacked and not challenged. I actually see another version in people that treat a contrast as a challenge when mere deviation from “the way things are done” appears.
Part of it is bound up in in-group criticism feeling like a betrayal. Related to that different people/authorities will react to an in-group challenge differently and there are often social scripts and customs ready to go that disadvantage people speaking out against someone with more social power (think of the dynamics involved in sexual abuse in religious hierarchies, same shit different flavor).
Related to that, part of it is involved in the feeling that one’s group having bad characteristics will make one’s group less competitive and effective when viewed by the public at large. So some people will avoid looking at and addressing the challenge while they criticize the challenger (think Nugent here).
Part of it is in the fact that skeptics and atheists have been acting as social gadflys which is a kind of socially predatory role. so it’s easy to slip into common patterns and react in a purely conflict sense, instead of a conflict sense that also includes using ones reasoning and logic beyond a particular point (I say that because they try, but they don’t show that they understand the how, what and why of xenophobia and bigotry claims). This one also has it’s versions in other social groups.
I’m sure there is more and that some of these are less or more important with the specific people here. Dawkins for example I feel is bad at introspection and used to being a combative authority who responds to challenge in public conflict sense more than a “being consistent with reality sense”, possibly more so due to feeling betrayal.
Ironically, such whining is often used as an excuse to not engage in discussion, i.e. as a way of shutting down debate.
I’m one of those women who was just getting excited to be a part of the atheist movement when the shitstorm went down on Rebecca Watson. I backed away pretty quickly. Was also ready to lift my personal ban on participating in online gaming, then Anita Sarkeesian got mobbed. Backed away from that, too. I don’t dare go to a local atheist group since I have no way of knowing beforehand if I am dealing with the Dawkins/Shermer crowd, and I can pretty much guarantee that there is no welcome in online gaming either. I wonder how many lurkers are like me, and were shut out of the community before we even managed to get in the door?
Not to derail, but who is Jamy Ian Swiss? I’d look them up, but I don’t want to accidentally wander into a cesspool. I just ate breakfast.
I am so tired of arguing about Dawkins. Even a simple statement to generally pro-women friends like “Dawkins is great at the things he is great at, but terrible at other things” dissolves into an argument. I am tired and hurt that I am friends with people who suddenly blow off women’s concerns about safety and respect – which generally they SAY they support – whenever it is an atheist rockstar at the center of the debate.
It’s a selfish statement, but I really just wish Dawkins would just shut up (publiclly) about things outside of his field for a while. Just until my heart stops hurting every time I interact with friends on social media. I guess I could just give up on social media, but I don’t want to give up on the friends.
Sorry, not entirely on topic, but I thought there might be others in the same boat.
Denverly @ 28:
It’s safe to click on PZ’s link about Swiss: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/05/05/i-officially-divorce-myself-from-the-skeptic-movement/
martha @8:
This has bothered me for more years than I like to admit. I was born in 1949 and in my adolescence I thought that we were winning. At Oxford, I and my buddies figured we were witnessing the last throes of the ancient class system, and we laughed (and grew our hair and had sex and did drugs and stuff, while doing enough academic work to graduate reasonably well). We were wrong. We were just a minority. Anecdotally, see the famous image of David Cameron and Boris Johnson and friends nearly 20 years later; statistically, see recent data on the background of current undergraduates there — the University is still terribly, terribly worried about the lack of applicants who have working-class parents.
Later, I espoused the theory that there is always an underground and sometimes the establishment takes a dead rebel to its collective bosom (Shelley is a classic example), and it’s important to maintain that deep river of connected revolt. I still think that’s worthwhile, but occasionally I am more optimistic. After all, feminism has come a long, long way, and I have witnessed the mainstreaming of formerly “deviant” sexuality, and even personally evolved. (Homosexuality was never a difficult issue for me — though I am straight — but I needed education on transgender matters, especially.) Why the hateful carry on remains a mystery to me. Why I love is also hard to explain.
@LykeX 27
I think that is where an element of projection occurs in social conflict (functionally assuming others can are are doing what you can and will do), and it seems to be particularly common among people in the dominant social group. This gets to the difference between things we “know” because people we listen to have worked things into our memories, and things we know from experience. When people are working purely off of social emotions I often see specific patterns akin to logical fallacy categories.
They sense group criticism and by their actions have not comprehended what the substance of the characterization is. But they still feels the need to respond to the emotions, probably because in the dominant social group we feel the need to defend the group more strongly than most because we (I’m white, male masculine) have been dominant so that’s how the emotions and instincts are arranged.
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/sure-whites-are-privileged–but-not-me-personally
This is our problem to fix and I don’t feel sorry for these sorts of bruised feelings.
Stereotypically, When you are a dominant person you have to scan for threats to that dominance, look for challenges. When one actually shows up you feel the urge to respond to it even more strongly because that is what you are used to doing. I believe there is a group-level correlate and that it can be based on race, sex, gender, religion, class, political party, even preferred sports team. So if as white, male, masculine people we are literally more emotionally sensitive to group criticism we need to grow a spine, admit it and functionally deal with that fact or there will be no solution to the problem of xenophobia and bigotry.
Petesh @ 31:
The problem is what it has always been – those who belong to the top tiers of that ancient class system, or aspire to belong to the so-called elite, don’t want anything to change, ever. When you fancy you’re on the top of the pile, you’re fearful and disdainful of everyone who might bring that pile down.
I should also mention that the general problem I outlined is also present in other groups that are marginalized relative to the white, male, masculine “control group”. So you have issues with some feminists and trans people, you have bisexuals being made invisible and being discriminated against by the LG. These are issues I’m still figuring out how to help with best since I’m still working on my own filters.
I mention this because it’s in part the general psychology of dominance and group conflict that is the ultimate problem. We have not found good ways of organizing society that deals with the associated problems over time. Functionally this involves dealing with white, male masculine people more often and many can’t deal with the “unfairness”.
Tabby at 9:
That gave me the best laugh I’ve had in some time. Never change, Kw*k. Never change.
It feels like a long time ago now but I was extremely, enthusiastically pro-Dawkins for years. I inherited most of his books and bought the rest; I thought he was the bees’ knees; I’m intensely embarrassed by it now, but at one of those London talks I was in the audience and had actually taken a book with me in case I got a chance to ask him to sign it.
I was massively disposed to be pro-Dawkins. Emphasis on was. I am now deeply embarrassed by the fact that because I loved his books I used to assume he was generally intellectually admirable. I was impressed by his account of furiously applauding a professor who was genuinely thrilled to be proven wrong; now I am vicariously ashamed of his inability to even consider the possibility that he may be wrong himself – ever.
And the only thing that has made the difference has been Dawkins’ own words, starting mainly with Dear Muslima and continuing with any number of tweets and contretemps since. He showed me, all by himself, with no prompting, that one can be a fine science writer while also being a wilfully blind, arrogant arse as a human being.
And there’s absolutely nothing unusual about me – I’m as ordinary as they come. There’ll be plenty like me, who would have preferred to be able to go on liking and admiring him if we only could; he made that impossible all by his own self.
I don’t think I’m particularly visible or memorable on here, but something tells me I’ve repeated my “Rargh! ‘Skeptics’! Why even?!” rant enough times in threads like this one that wheeling it out again would be redundant?.
My belated valentine to movement atheism and skepticism.
I will admit to one thing. I am developing an anti-male bias. I can’t help it. I never wanted it, but it’s growing in me. I suppose it’s probably more of an anti-humans-in-general bias though. I never wanted to be anti-Dawkins. I never wanted to have a knee-jerk hostility toward people who openly identify as atheists. I never wanted to immediately question the rationality and honesty of anyone who openly identified as a skeptic. If I’d had options, those are not the ones I would’ve picked, but the only alternatives I was given were to be ignorant, dishonest, or both.
Rargh. Humans. Why even?
opposablethumbs
While not quite as enthusiastic, I remember the original “Dear Muslima”. I remember I argued “surely that’s an impersonator, Dawkins wouldn’t be that horribly wrong and dismissive. Then Dawkins discovered Twitter and still I must have said like half a dozen times “are you sure that’s not photoshopped, seriously, not even Dawkins would say that”. I was disappointed. Every. Single. Time.
Giliell:
Oh, that’s me all over. I remember the denial, my denial. I so dearly wanted to believe that Dawkins was much, much better than that.
Caine @33: Respectfully, that begs the question. Why do some privileged people want to bring the old order down, while others want only to be at the top of it? Not just economically: why are some straight men sympathetic to feminism while others are threatened by it? They’re not all just faking it to get laid (though that does happen), and they don’t always follow parental example either. (A really good answer would win not just the Internets but literature itself.)
Ah, so we’re doing the whole skeptical posturing by identifying logical fallacies thing? Great. Let’s have a “Don’t I sound smart?” dick waving contest.
Ad hominem
Strawman
Fallacy fallacy
Poisoning the well
Begging the question
Strawman
Poisoning the well
Ad hominem and fallacy fallacy in the same sentence.
Hasty generalization
The entire section is an ad hominem
False dilemma
Argumentum ad populum
Argument to moderation
Strawman and argumentum ad baculum
Appeal to emotion
There. Now that I’ve proven what a great skeptic I am, I’m sure Ken agrees with me now.
Rem acu tetigisti (You have touched the matter with a needle) as Bertie Wooster says. I call that use of ambiguity the “EP-shuffle”. I suspect some similar equivocation is common in privilege-defensive ideologies. In neoclassical economics, there’s the “neoclassical shuffle”: complete selfishness is ordinarily assumed in neoclassical economic models, but when the fact that people don’t actually behave like that is raised, there’s often a retreat to something more like “People act to maximise their utility” – which is probably irrefutable, as invisible parcels of “utility” can be assumed more or less ad lib. Again, climate change denialists equivocate on the meaning of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge: it’s uncontroversial that there is still much that is not known about climate dynamics, but their inference from this that we don’t know enough to act is invalid.
Yep. Lost in the big comment purge of sciblogs, in that Dear Muslima thread, was me begging him to see reason while still fawning all over him. We are not people who are predisposed to think the worst of him: that results from him methodically eroding the good will we had away, bit by bit, even while we tried to shore up the pieces.
I forget the exact quote, but PZ has dusted it off from time to time, roughly “if you don’t have arguments and a loyal opposition within your group, it’s not inclusive enough”. It kills me how constructive criticism (and okay, occasionally ad hominem venom) is considered out of bounds when women or minorities tell a rich white het male he ought to be more sensitive, but it’s absolutely fair game against people like Watson or Sarkeesian or Ta-Nehisi. Punching down = Yes, Train Those Insolent Puppies, punching up = HERETIC!!
Sadly, we’re seeing the same thing in the Democratic primaries. There are great things about both candidates, and bad things about both. But if you critique the one I favor, that doesn’t make you stupid or sexist or racist or overly idealistic or anti-semitic– unless you say stupid or sexist or unrealistic or anti-Semitic or racist things. Same with Hawkins and Darris and Histina Croff….nobody has an axe to grind against them, nobody harbors a priori biases. And the vast majority of atheists and skeptics I know would be happy to listen to arguments that might topple their sacred cows. But if you say stupid racist sexist homophobic anti-Semitic anti-factual codswallop, calling you out on it is the DUTY of you fellow atheists and skeptics. Stop whining about having your shoddy logic debunked!
I’m suddenly very curious:
This sort of thing comes up a hell of a lot. Whenever someone’s invitation is revoked or they get dropped from their honorary position, people claim it’s due to bullying from extremists… do we actually have any reason to believe that this is true? Were people flocking to NECSS and demanding that they retract Dawkins’ invitation? I’m not claiming that this definitely didn’t happen – I have no idea if it did or not – but the impression I got from their statements was not one that suggested outside influence was particularly involved in their decision.
ryan cunningham
:D Thanks for the laugh.
Athywren:
This people wasn’t.
I didn’t either. I’m sure NECSS has gotten an enormous dudebro response. It’s actually a minority of the group atheists, but they have boundless reserves of male entitlement, and great skill in creating sockpuppets to amplify their fem-hatred.
tl;dr version = I’m another person whose biases worked in Dawkins favour for a long time.
I’ll add my +1 as a person who was a great fan of Dawkins when I only knew him from his science outreach. I was initially happy that he was bringing atheism into the public eye but more and more worrisome comments/opinions started to pile up until I now view him as an embarrassment. Yeah, I still agree with him on many issues but most of the religious people I know are far better allies when it comes to making the world a better place.
Dear Muslima was the first really big shocker. I had stumbled across (YouTube suggestion after watching something else) the video in which Rebecca Watson gave the “Guys, don’t do that” advice. I had no idea who she was at the time and thought it was really good information for people who don’t understand the extra stress created by confined environments.
As a moderately physically imposing man, I realized long ago that people smaller than myself would often get uneasy if they felt cornered. I learned to give more space and always leave an open path. This was reinforced when I was working with young children. Many times, I would see children (especially obvious with infants and toddlers) get extremely nervous when approached by an adult who did not leave them an escape path.
Ironically, the people who did this the most were women of small stature, who were not used to inducing a fight-or-flight response when interacting with people. But when I explained this to them, they universally said something like, “Oh crap, I never thought of it like that” and they would change their behaviour with immediate positive results. That was my expectation of how Watson’s advice would be received. Holy shit, was I wrong. And to see Dawkins emerge as a ring-leader of the opposition crushed a lot of my hope for the world.
Even after e-gate, I hadn’t given up on Dawkins to realize that he was being an ass, but he seems incapable of the kind of introspection required. Any time his callousness is pointed out, he just doubles down.
Golgafrinchan Captain @ 49:
You were far from alone on that one. Never occurred to me that it would turn out to be such a shitstorm. It was basic info, and good advice. I think the expectation of having people simply think “hmm, never thought of that, I’ll be mindful in the future” was the reason why so many of us felt utterly stunned by the response.
I came at elevatorgate from the other end, having been well informed that Watson was a demonic feminazi with a thirst for male blood. (I also had a fair idea that Dawkins’ response to it was overboard though, even though I didn’t know what his response was at the time – it came up on Atheist Experience, and Matt Dillahunty said something to that effect.) It was my first year of university and I was early on in a relationship, so pretty much every spare moment was filled with study, making doe eyes, or games, so I completely missed the real time event. It took me pretty much an entire evening to work my way through all the discussions (“discussions”) to get back to the source of the controversy… I read through the comments while I listened to her speak. “Shit,” I thought, “people are pissed. What are you about to say here? What the hell are you about to-”
“Guys, don’t do that.”
…………you fucking WHAT? All this rage? Over so small a request? The fuck?! I’m still not really sure what’s worse – the idea that most of the ragers – my band of skeptical brothers – didn’t bother to actually check the claim against reality, or that they did and were still outraged by… that.
I was already kind of a feminist at that point (not a very good one – I was a Nice Guy, and more than a little clueless – but I think I was already on the right track, even if I wasn’t far down it) but that really pushed things home. I still managed to convince myself that Dawkins’ comments were simply coming from a place of seeing all the uproar and, being too busy to really check, assuming she’d made some ludicrous demands of men or something, but more recently I could actually believe he heard the original comments and still reacted that way. I used to think he must have had some social media person close to him who was giving him just enough information to outrage him, and who was too trusted to have anyone feel the need to double check his comments, but I don’t know if that’s necessary to explain his behaviour anymore.
Athywren:
He knew what was going on, he thought Watson was making a huge deal over nothing, compared it to him being annoyed by a gum chewer in the elevator.
Well, yes, but I couldn’t believe that at the time because he was Captain Smartmans and it’s the exact opposite of reality – she made a remarkably small deal out of kind of something (and I think the fact that the people who still bring it up as evidence of her wickedness make a point of eliding all of the relevant details and strip it down to “some dude invited her to his room” supports the idea that it was something) – so the only way he could have been taking that stance is if he didn’t know… is what I thought back then. I no longer agree with me of course.
A dinner party thrown by food inspectors with piles of steaming rhetorical dung flowing over the kitchen benches.
“Aren’t you supposed to be food inspectors?” ask the guests, holding back their gag reflexes.
“Oh, we only inspect other people’s kitchens.”
This rule is worth applying broadly. In particular it brought to mind all the Bernie Sanders supporters out there whinging about how women or minorities are only supporting Clinton because they don’t know what’s good for them. Regardless of the subject, telling people who disagree with you that they’re too stupid or blind to make up their own minds is the worst imaginable way to win them over to your side.
What’s wrong with being anti-Dawkins?
He speaks for the skeptics community while being ridiculously gullible, he speaks for reason while committing a series of clumsy logical fallacies.
Dear Muslima?
Accusing PZ to cash in on controversities!? WTF.
Being logical, rational and aware of cognitive biases is *useless* unless one applies that to *thier* ideas first.
@Ryan Cunninam #41 Thank you for the work, I wanted to to something like that myself.
@40
Empathy.
Source: personal, anecdotal, experience.
1 Internet, please.
Ogvorbis (#3)
No kidding. As a relatively privileged person myself, I think of it this way: The alternative to acknowledging privilege is to believe we live in a meritocracy. If you don’t have privilege, then you get treated better because you’re doing something to deserve to be treated better, and, conversely, people who get treated worse are doing something to deserve worse treatment.
Or, if you do have privilege, you’re getting some unfair advantages and other people are getting unfairly disadvantaged. Which turns out to make a whole hell of a lot of sense and does a much better job of explaining human society. In fact, it makes sense exactly the way atheism better explains the natural world than imagining an interventionist god set things up. You can isolate facts and twist them to badly fit a theistic narrative, just like you can isolate facts and twist them to fit a meritocratic narrative, but the more holistic of an approach you take, the more theism and meritocracy fail to hold up.
Latin folk?
That band I do not want to hear.
How many years now, and I’m still horribly disappointed in and a bit frightened by the fact that the entire concept of not, like, cornering people in such a way that they have no escape is somehow controversial…
NYC @57
On empathy as explanation for differing reactions to social interactions:
Needs more detail; show your work.
:-)
Dawkins privilage showed in his absolute rejection that anything bad happened in that lift.
He doesn’t have the knowledge to properly interpret the events – no doubt male gaze turning into explicit proposition done in an environment engineered to deliver maximum possible benefit to the male. Classic PU moves.
The fact it didn’t escalate makes it less of a bad – not zero bad.
It is for this very reason that men are requested to stop self-explaining and start listening to a POV which is no doubt alien to their long held sensibilities.
#41 Ryan, wonderful post.
I agree that his frequent use of the word “fallacy” to lend verisimilitude to his arguments is overweening. The first instance is a good example: “This is the fallacy of faulty generalisation – or more precisely, faulty induction.” Why couldn’t he just say: “This is a faulty generalisation – or more precisely, a faulty induction.” ? I’m guessing it’s because he thought it wouldn’t sound as authoritative. But it sounds pompous to my ears.
@63
That’s because it is pompous.
@61
My sjw leanings, despite being a white hetero cis man, are derived mostly from empathy. ie, things are good for me, but it must suck to deal with what minorities are saddled with. What’s worse is that they are saddled with these problems for no good reason. Others lack that capacity for empathy.
I know that what you’re getting at is the deeper question of why they lack this basic human decency, and that my answer answers next to nothing.
I was being a smart ass.
Do I qualify for that Internet?
no
petesh
Because some people are selfish bastards and others are not. Easy answer to easy questions. Of course, both groups believe themselves to be decent people, but so does the Pope.
Athywren
Yet, when they are reinvited, that’s seeing reason. It is actually a case where both groups believe the exact opposite of an event, both ways around. If you want to know who the good ones are, look at which group uses slurs, rape threats and rape fantasies and go for the other…
Golgafrinchan Captain
I remember watching that video some time before it became the fulcrum of the tectonic drift that caused the deep rifts. It came at the end of a, to me, rather boring video, because it was mostly a “what I did on my holidays” kind of thing, and that particular episode struck me as “yeah, please, that’s totally inconsiderate”. I wouldn’t have bet a single cent on this being something that people could actually get upset about*. I was soooo wrong.
*It is quite telling how people who regularly call us SJWs crybabies, accusing us of making a mountain out of a molehill, being hysterical can freak out and lose their shit over the smallest things.
Caine
Which is pretty ironic in and on itself, because somebody chewing gum, however “recklessly”, does not infringe on your personal space or safety at all. It’s not an interaction.
From my point of view, Richard Dawkins is an able writer who has been unable to shake off the social preconceptions of his upper middle class English upbringing.
The defense of Dr. Dawkins seems to be little more than hero worship and without the understanding that a hero is human. Heroes are not faultless supermen and finding certain of their actions admirable does not make everything they do admirable; our heroes are not gods. Treating Dr. Dawkins as a faultless or using his prior deeds to excuse his current overt prejudices is a betrayal of the atheism Richard Dawkins so ably championed.
This same blind hero worship is inexcusably common. Criticise Sam Harris for his bigotry or his failed moral judgments is to call down the wrath of his yapping fanboiz. Point out that some conference guests can be sexual predators or that some bloggers are not paragons of reason or other bloggers are guilty of gross breaches of ethical behaviour brings out a similar group. Just as with Dr Dawkins guardians, this defense of chosen idols might almost be a substitute for the religion that the defenders have otherwise abandoned.
It’s not fair.
Each time a claim is made, no matter how absurd, the sjw side responds in depth -like for example all the responses of initially not having been ‘anti-Dawkins’ that are in this thread, while the Dawkins side has failed to even reply to most of the criticism made.
It shouldn’t be this way.
People shouldn’t have to defend themselves when dealing with a Gish gallop of comletely unsubstantiated accusations other than the ususal mockery of unevidenced claims. I want to know which of the people criticising Dawkins now were anti-Dawkins and where I can find where they express that. How do you know that the NECSS made it’s decision to retract its invitation due to pressure groups and what kind of pressure are you against? Show your work!
@petesh #61: we build our reality from our experiences.
By definition, privilege cuts those who have it away from certain negative experiences.
These negative experiences never enter the reality of a privileged person, never become part of how this person understand the world: their absence from a person’s perception is so ingrained that it becomes natural to dismiss or reject them as fantasy.
More importantly, the concept itself that one could be so blind to other’s experiences is very challenging, and a very long step for many.
So what’s different between someone who takes such a long step, and someone who doesn’t?
My take is that we who take such a step are actively aware of how intellectual limits and cognitive biases affect not only others, but most importantly and crucially ourselves.
This self-awareness makes us more open to find and address our limits and mistakes.
Humans have flaw X and are blind to it. I am human. I am likely to have flaw X and being utterly unaware of it, even if I can perfectly see flaw X in others.
* And I’m not implying that a single step is all it takes. I very much doubt I’m done learning.
@69
This
Another big step for me was the few years I spent living in poverty as a young adult after a childhood of middle class life, plus wearing long hair for that time. Suddenly I’m getting pulled over for bs all the time, and other little injustices. Because obviously the white guy in a ponytail in an old garbage car in a majority black neighborhood is up to no good, apparently.
I was almost forced to realize ‘oh, so black people AREN’T making this stuff up.’
CLARIFICATION
This is not to say that my experiences are at all of the same magnitude minorities have. I’m just saying it opened my eyes to very real phenomena.