Print

[seaotter]

Aren't yall off topic?

[Moon Police]

I haven't listened to the episode yet but we should definitely have more threads like these: Black Woman and Big Asses 

[Hanes]

Are women held back in skepticism?  I pose a hypothetical:  a blog starts up called "skepdudes."  Do you bet it will get more traffic or less than a blog called "skepchicks?"

And guess what, being told you need to be "both smart and pretty and nice all the time..." that's called...... reality.  Dr. Tyson was voted Sexiest Astrophysicist in 2000.  Imagine if a woman had been given that title, what a stink women would have raised.  "Wah wah, they want us to be pretty wah wah."  Well guess what, I don't look like Brad Pitt and I guarentee that if I did I'd have an easier time getting a job.  It's not sexism, it's called being shallow, and our culture is shallow.  Fucking women and their fucking persecution complex...

[Hanes]

And furthermore (I have to make this brief or burn dinner.  Hanes, being brief?  Who would have thought), Rebecca didn't raise a big stink when Tim Minching put out is poem "Storm," even though, "omg that steriotypes women!"  More evidence that person bias is more responsible for this perception of persecution than any actual ostacism or sexism.

[MisterMarc]

I guess they'd use scientific method processes, if not traditional science. I'm not sure why this is getting adversarial.

It wasn't my intention to seem adversarial. I'm not charming enough to be adversarial and still have people like me, so I have to be diplomatic (which is what I thought I was being). I'll leave adversarial to Hanes, he can pull it off better.

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism, so to complain that all of the topics at a skeptic convention are related to science seems a bit unrealistic.

[seaotter]

Ok, aren't you putting words into the mouths of both Rebecca and Carrie. I don't remember either saying they were persecuted or ostracised. Just that they would like to see more women and minorities. So would I.

I totally agree with your comments about skeptics in general and racism/sexism. As I said I think people here are judged by the content in their arguments. I also tend to agree with you regarding the stereotype angle. In general people aren't critical thinkers. Is it sexist to think that men will respond to a women's advances more if she talks about football instead of quantum mechanics. No. It's much more a commentary on science vs. sports than men vs women.

[KarenX]

I guess they'd use scientific method processes, if not traditional science. I'm not sure why this is getting adversarial.

It wasn't my intention to seem adversarial. I'm not charming enough to be adversarial and still have people like me, so I have to be diplomatic (which is what I thought I was being). I'll leave adversarial to Hanes, he can pull it off better.

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism, so to complain that all of the topics at a skeptic convention are related to science seems a bit unrealistic.

I wasn't complaining. I was just saying how the movement maybe has a narrow perspective. And even if you say that a legitimate, thorough historian goes through a process that is analogous to the scientific method, does that put the question of who wrote the Shakespearean plays within the realm of science? I don't think the topics I brought up were "science." Certainly the question of whether a child who learned to play the piano via the Suzuki method is a "musician" does not fall in that category.

(For the record, I haven't thought about the Suzuki method since I graduated college. That could be a passe topic for music educators. I was just using it as an example.)

[seaotter]

I guess they'd use scientific method processes, if not traditional science. I'm not sure why this is getting adversarial.

It wasn't my intention to seem adversarial. I'm not charming enough to be adversarial and still have people like me, so I have to be diplomatic (which is what I thought I was being). I'll leave adversarial to Hanes, he can pull it off better.

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism, so to complain that all of the topics at a skeptic convention are related to science seems a bit unrealistic.

I guess this is a two-way street, but I'm into science. That's my "movement". I'm more interested in how we get more people interested in science and skepticism, instead of how skepticism works in other... This isn't right. I'm into history, religion, and politics. Look on the boards. I see that most of us are interested in life, but there is a value in specializing. When I want science and skepticism I come to the sgu. When I want a contrarian if not skeptical look at politics, I go to Carlin. when I need religion: the atheist experience.

Getting drunk and rambling.

I consider KarenX a big part of the skeptical movement to me.

[seaotter]

I guess they'd use scientific method processes, if not traditional science. I'm not sure why this is getting adversarial.

It wasn't my intention to seem adversarial. I'm not charming enough to be adversarial and still have people like me, so I have to be diplomatic (which is what I thought I was being). I'll leave adversarial to Hanes, he can pull it off better.

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism, so to complain that all of the topics at a skeptic convention are related to science seems a bit unrealistic.

I wasn't complaining. I was just saying how the movement maybe has a narrow perspective. And even if you say that a legitimate, thorough historian goes through a process that is analogous to the scientific method, does that put the question of who wrote the Shakespearean plays within the realm of science? I don't think the topics I brought up were "science." Certainly the question of whether a child who learned to play the piano via the Suzuki method is a "musician" does not fall in that category.

(For the record, I haven't thought about the Suzuki method since I graduated college. That could be a passe topic for music educators. I was just using it as an example.)

The effectiveness of the Suzuki method is a scientific question. Never heard of it though. Science is a philosophy of investigation. It applies to everything despite what Gould says.

[MisterMarc]

Certainly the question of whether a child who learned to play the piano via the Suzuki method is a "musician" does not fall in that category.

(For the record, I haven't thought about the Suzuki method since I graduated college. That could be a passe topic for music educators. I was just using it as an example.)

Dang, HUGE slam on the Suzuki method out of nowhere!

Skepticism wouldn't, I think, deign to make pronouncements about who is a musician and who isn't. Though someone's effectiveness as a musician might be empirically studied. I don't think skepticism is about original research, but if someone were already doing this research then I don't see that it might not be interesting to skeptics. (Science-based music, anyone?) The question is, who is studying this, and who is interested in people who study this. Are there groups of people following this information closely? I mean, with all due respect to the science-based musicians out there, a convention is about drawing an audience. You can't fault them for having people like Adam Savage and Penn & Teller speak over, say, the guy doing an obscure musicology study (if there even is one).

[seaotter]

It's like fondue. My wife has been on (Just like a women  ) me to go to this fondue (In Alabama who would have thunk it) place. I have been very very resistant. I don't know why, it just didn't seem like it could be good. Short story long, we went and it's freakin fantastic. Skepticism = fondue.

[MisterMarc]

It's like fondue. My wife has been on (Just like a women  ) me to go to this fondue (In Alabama who would have thunk it) place. I have been very very resistant. I don't know why, it just didn't seem like it could be good. Short story long, we went and it's freakin fantastic. Skepticism = fondue.

[Bill K]

If females aren't as prominent in the skeptical or scientific communities, then it seems fucked up to try and even it out so you have 50% men and 50% women speakers. I mean, you can apply this reasoning to every other public forum, right?

[PepsiDoodles]

I don't see the problem with reaching out to women and minorities.  Even if they're underrepresented in the overall scientific community, I see no reason why the skeptical community has to reflect that.  That doesn't mean go out of your way to find obscure people... oh wait, it does.  And what's wrong with that?  Too lazy?  I saw zero minority speakers at TAM and only one woman (hopefully I just missed them).  Are you telling me there are zero skeptical minorities and only one woman willing to speak at the event?  Or was there no effort to find any minorities or other women to speak at the event?

I find it hard to believe that as skeptics you won't even entertain the idea of confirmation bias in the selection of speakers.

[seaotter]

It's like fondue. My wife has been on (Just like a women  ) me to go to this fondue (In Alabama who would have thunk it) place. I have been very very resistant. I don't know why, it just didn't seem like it could be good. Short story long, we went and it's freakin fantastic. Skepticism = fondue.

I'm not feeling appreciated. Least you didn't throw the 9th amendment in my face.