5 ms·

Weird rambling. From his style of argumentation ("other skeptics are sexist and Star Trek fans") he probably wasn't a very good skeptic anyway.

by Tichy 14y ago

btilly 14y ago
Would you believe that he's a well-known programmer and consultant who also happens to be the highest rated speaker at OSCON ever? But if it helps you avoid cognitive dissonance to conclude that he has no clue, that's your choice.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Would you believe that he's a well-known programmer and consultant who also happens to be the highest rated speaker at OSCON ever? Proving what exactly? Billy Graham is (was) also a well-regarded public speaker. This claim doesn't support the depth of his ideas, and can't compare to examining the ideas themselves.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I mostly read his paragraph on sexism, which frankly struck me as very silly. What has other skeptics being sexist to do with him being a skeptic? And what has Star Trek being sexist to do with skeptics? The logic was just very bad, so he didn't convince me as a skeptic. I assumed being a skeptic would involve being rational. His ratings in an community unknown to me don't impress me at all. I mean it is cool, but I still look at what he says with skepticism. The world is full of famous people who are wrong.
  - btilly 14y ago
    If you read it again, you'll see that he did not attempt to lay out his section on sexism as a rational argument, but merely as a series of observations. The Star Trek reference was an analogy to what he observes among skeptics. I think that this is appropriate. If you've thought about sexism, and have observed skeptic communities, then you'll have no trouble recognizing the validity of his observations based on your own. If you have not observed skeptic communities, then you can either take his word for it, or else go out and do your own first hand observations. And finally if you've never actually thought much about sexism, well, how could he reasonably begin to explain? In short, either you get it and further explanation is superfluous, or else you don't and his attempting to enlighten you would take him seriously off course. Either way there is no point in having him try to present an airtight logical argument.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      What on earth is a skeptic community? I thought being a skeptic simply means not taking things at face value. Why do I have to be lumped in with random people from the internet just because I like to think about things? Can we say that HN is a skeptic community, for example? Would you say HN is very sexist? Or do only "skeptic communities" that are actually sexist count?
- berntb 14y ago
  >> Would you believe that he's a well-known programmer I don't believe I see intelligent people, like you, use someone's programming credentials as support for an ideologically motivated axe job in a non-programming subject. :-( There is an old Swedish saw, badly translated as "where liquor go in, sense go out". Just do s/liquor/ideology/
- rincewind 14y ago
  Are you thinking about Mark Jason Dominius? His Web site is http://perl.plover.com/ http://perl.plover.com/. He made a presentation about making presentations at OSCON: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Tsom5hI98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Tsom5hI98 Stephen Bond, who wrote the linked page, is at http://plover.net/~bonds/ http://plover.net/~bonds/. I could not find any OSCON talks by him. Can you please provide a link? I think you are confusing them based on the similar domain names.
batista 14y ago
>Weird rambling. From his style of argumentation ("other skeptics are sexist and Star Trek fans") he probably wasn't a very good skeptic anyway. Yes, because "no true sceptic" would be sexist and/or a Star Trek fan right? Have you been to ACTUAL sceptic forums and web circles? He might miss a few outliers, but his actual criticisms are spot on in the main.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?
  - batista 14y ago
    He might have just been an outlier. It would only be worth investigating if the majority of Nazis and Nazi supporters were vegetarians. I didn't speak about some sceptics, much less about ONE. I spoke about what qualities I saw in the majority of them. Hence, I fail to see how your sarcastic comment applies here.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      What I meant is just because bad person A has opinion X, it does not invalidate opinion X. So just because Sexist A is skeptic it does not follow that every skeptic is sexist. As I said in another comment: if he can not even avoid basic logical fallacies, he probably never was a very good skeptic to begin with.
      - batista 14y ago
        "What I meant is just because bad person A has opinion X, it does not invalidate opinion X. So just because Sexist A is skeptic it does not follow that every skeptic is sexist." Of course not. But as he, I also noticed a lot of them being sexist. At some point you have to stop the "just because X is A and B, doesn't mean that every A is B", and make an empirical observation based on the statistical information you have available. Else you fall into the "no true scotchman" fallacy.

Weird rambling. From his style of argumentation ("other skeptics are sexist and Star Trek fans") he probably wasn't a very good skeptic anyway.

by Tichy 14y ago

Weird rambling. From his style of argumentation ("other skeptics are sexist and Star Trek fans") he probably wasn't a very good skeptic anyway.

btilly 14y ago

Would you believe that he's a well-known programmer and consultant who also happens to be the highest rated speaker at OSCON ever? But if it helps you avoid cognitive dissonance to conclude that he has no clue, that's your choice.

lutusp 14y ago
> Would you believe that he's a well-known programmer and consultant who also happens to be the highest rated speaker at OSCON ever? Proving what exactly? Billy Graham is (was) also a well-regarded public speaker. This claim doesn't support the depth of his ideas, and can't compare to examining the ideas themselves.
Tichy 14y ago
I mostly read his paragraph on sexism, which frankly struck me as very silly. What has other skeptics being sexist to do with him being a skeptic? And what has Star Trek being sexist to do with skeptics? The logic was just very bad, so he didn't convince me as a skeptic. I assumed being a skeptic would involve being rational. His ratings in an community unknown to me don't impress me at all. I mean it is cool, but I still look at what he says with skepticism. The world is full of famous people who are wrong.
- btilly 14y ago
  If you read it again, you'll see that he did not attempt to lay out his section on sexism as a rational argument, but merely as a series of observations. The Star Trek reference was an analogy to what he observes among skeptics. I think that this is appropriate. If you've thought about sexism, and have observed skeptic communities, then you'll have no trouble recognizing the validity of his observations based on your own. If you have not observed skeptic communities, then you can either take his word for it, or else go out and do your own first hand observations. And finally if you've never actually thought much about sexism, well, how could he reasonably begin to explain? In short, either you get it and further explanation is superfluous, or else you don't and his attempting to enlighten you would take him seriously off course. Either way there is no point in having him try to present an airtight logical argument.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    What on earth is a skeptic community? I thought being a skeptic simply means not taking things at face value. Why do I have to be lumped in with random people from the internet just because I like to think about things? Can we say that HN is a skeptic community, for example? Would you say HN is very sexist? Or do only "skeptic communities" that are actually sexist count?
berntb 14y ago
>> Would you believe that he's a well-known programmer I don't believe I see intelligent people, like you, use someone's programming credentials as support for an ideologically motivated axe job in a non-programming subject. :-( There is an old Swedish saw, badly translated as "where liquor go in, sense go out". Just do s/liquor/ideology/
rincewind 14y ago
Are you thinking about Mark Jason Dominius? His Web site is http://perl.plover.com/ http://perl.plover.com/. He made a presentation about making presentations at OSCON: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Tsom5hI98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Tsom5hI98 Stephen Bond, who wrote the linked page, is at http://plover.net/~bonds/ http://plover.net/~bonds/. I could not find any OSCON talks by him. Can you please provide a link? I think you are confusing them based on the similar domain names.

batista 14y ago

>Weird rambling. From his style of argumentation ("other skeptics are sexist and Star Trek fans") he probably wasn't a very good skeptic anyway. Yes, because "no true sceptic" would be sexist and/or a Star Trek fan right? Have you been to ACTUAL sceptic forums and web circles? He might miss a few outliers, but his actual criticisms are spot on in the main.

Tichy 14y ago
Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?
- batista 14y ago
  He might have just been an outlier. It would only be worth investigating if the majority of Nazis and Nazi supporters were vegetarians. I didn't speak about some sceptics, much less about ONE. I spoke about what qualities I saw in the majority of them. Hence, I fail to see how your sarcastic comment applies here.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    What I meant is just because bad person A has opinion X, it does not invalidate opinion X. So just because Sexist A is skeptic it does not follow that every skeptic is sexist. As I said in another comment: if he can not even avoid basic logical fallacies, he probably never was a very good skeptic to begin with.
    - batista 14y ago
      "What I meant is just because bad person A has opinion X, it does not invalidate opinion X. So just because Sexist A is skeptic it does not follow that every skeptic is sexist." Of course not. But as he, I also noticed a lot of them being sexist. At some point you have to stop the "just because X is A and B, doesn't mean that every A is B", and make an empirical observation based on the statistical information you have available. Else you fall into the "no true scotchman" fallacy.