4 ms·

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 p

by llambda 15y ago

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. :)

Alex3917 15y ago
That's only the first couple sections of the essay, the rest of it is largely about epistemology. If anything he doesn't go far enough in the latter half, e.g. there is a compelling argument to be made that western medicine is basically a cult with a lot in common with scientology: http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=269 http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=269 Not that there isn't anything good about pharmacology, it's probably the best system we have for certain kinds of research, but at the same time these self-proclaimed skeptics have basically teamed up with big pharma to defend the worst parts of it. I think the fact that there are so many skeptics lining up to defend the epistemological one-truth world that big pharma has bought and paid for is pretty disgusting.
marijn 15y ago
If it has no place on HN, let the voting take care of that. It appears this link has vanished off the front page, though it is doing quite well in terms of score. Probably because it was flagged. That's not how open dialogue works.
rmc 15y ago
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 15y ago
  he does talk a lot about the flaws with skepticism itself, but I agree that this is primarily an attack on the skeptic community.
AlexandrB 15y ago
He then goes on to say: "To their credit, many big-name skeptics (including PZ Myers and Phil Plait) called Dawkins out on his obvious sexism; but to my knowledge — and correct me if I'm wrong — not one of them has said a word about his Islamophobia. It seems as though this racist trash is as accepted within the skeptic community as it evidently is within the common rooms of Oxbridge." Even disregarding the caricaturization of Islam, the Dawkins quote is the worst kind of dismissive, sarcastic non-answer that should, rightly, be criticized. At any rate, TFA has now been removed from the front page of HN, and I can't help feeling that it's due to the fact that the HN overwhelmingly disagrees with the author and not because the post is poorly written or thought out.

by llambda 15y ago

Alex3917 15y ago

That's only the first couple sections of the essay, the rest of it is largely about epistemology. If anything he doesn't go far enough in the latter half, e.g. there is a compelling argument to be made that western medicine is basically a cult with a lot in common with scientology: http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=269 http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=269 Not that there isn't anything good about pharmacology, it's probably the best system we have for certain kinds of research, but at the same time these self-proclaimed skeptics have basically teamed up with big pharma to defend the worst parts of it. I think the fact that there are so many skeptics lining up to defend the epistemological one-truth world that big pharma has bought and paid for is pretty disgusting.

marijn 15y ago

If it has no place on HN, let the voting take care of that. It appears this link has vanished off the front page, though it is doing quite well in terms of score. Probably because it was flagged. That's not how open dialogue works.

rmc 15y ago

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 15y ago
he does talk a lot about the flaws with skepticism itself, but I agree that this is primarily an attack on the skeptic community.

AlexandrB 15y ago

He then goes on to say: "To their credit, many big-name skeptics (including PZ Myers and Phil Plait) called Dawkins out on his obvious sexism; but to my knowledge — and correct me if I'm wrong — not one of them has said a word about his Islamophobia. It seems as though this racist trash is as accepted within the skeptic community as it evidently is within the common rooms of Oxbridge." Even disregarding the caricaturization of Islam, the Dawkins quote is the worst kind of dismissive, sarcastic non-answer that should, rightly, be criticized. At any rate, TFA has now been removed from the front page of HN, and I can't help feeling that it's due to the fact that the HN overwhelmingly disagrees with the author and not because the post is poorly written or thought out.