3 ms·

I like Horgan as a writer, and while I would probably disagree with some of his assertions and positions, his criticism here of the self-deluding and smug stanc

I like Horgan as a writer, and while I would probably disagree with some of his assertions and positions, his criticism here of the self-deluding and smug stance of the more tribal elements of the skeptical/atheist/scientistic camp is fully justified and righteous, and proved completely correct by the obnoxious counter-attacks he documents.

EnergyAmy 4y ago
Meh. After reading both the linked page and this link[1] that someone else posted in this thread, I definitely agree with this take from the latter: > After reading his article, it is safe to say that Horgan does not have the first clue about scientific skepticism. The result was a parade of straw men supported by cherry picked and often misinterpreted examples. I don't see obnoxious counter-attacks, I see people correctly pointing out that he's wrong. [1]: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is...
- rthorat 4y ago
  [flagged]
- peterashford 4y ago
  As someone with a degree in Philosophy, I think he's in the right about skepticism and the people he's aiming at are deserving targets.
bsder 4y ago
[dead]