3 ms·

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 iden

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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/ManicPixieDreamGirl http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGi... 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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmodernism
      - wisty 15y ago
        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/ 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 15y ago
        "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.

wisty 15y ago

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 15y ago
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/ManicPixieDreamGirl http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGi... 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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmodernism
    - wisty 15y ago
      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/ 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 15y ago
        "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.