Print

[seaotter]

The burning question since I became aware of skepticism is how to get minorities and women interested in fondue. I guess the question raised on the episode today is whether we are doing something to dissuade people from fondue.

[MisterMarc]

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?

What's wrong with going out of your way to find obscure people who are women or minorities and favoring them over less obscure speakers that are white males? Gee...I dunno....could it beeeeeee sexism/racism?

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.

I don't mind entertaining the idea, but let's look at the facts. Show me the list of possible speakers by race and sex, show me who was invited, and show me the final list of speakers. THEN I'll decide if TAM is racist/sexist in it's selection process. Frankly...I'm skeptical.

[KarenX]

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism.

I've been mulling it over and I've decided I disagree. Perhaps "science" is such a broad term that we are having a semantic disagreement, rather than a conceptual one. You can be skeptical about everything, but just being critical thinkers or applying skepticism about something doesn't make it science.

That is all.

Show me the list of possible speakers by race and sex, show me who was invited, and show me the final list of speakers. THEN I'll decide if TAM is racist/sexist in it's selection process. Frankly...I'm skeptical.

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

[MisterMarc]

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

Come on, that's just not being fair. There are higher standards for being a speaker at such an event than just having "ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group."

[seaotter]

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism.

I've been mulling it over and I've decided I disagree. Perhaps "science" is such a broad term that we are having a semantic disagreement, rather than a conceptual one. You can be skeptical about everything, but just being critical thinkers or applying skepticism about something doesn't make it science.

That is all.

Show me the list of possible speakers by race and sex, show me who was invited, and show me the final list of speakers. THEN I'll decide if TAM is racist/sexist in it's selection process. Frankly...I'm skeptical.

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

Yes it does. Science is a philosophy of investigation involving critical thinking and evidence.

[KarenX]

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

Come on, that's just not being fair. There are higher standards for being a speaker at such an event than just having "ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group."

I agree. But those are possible... so before we can perform the experiment about whether TAM is racist/sexist in the selection process, we need to know what the criteria are. How do you think the short list for speakers is generated? Would anyone who knows about the process be likely to answer here?

[mindme]

Isn't big bang theory equally stereotypical of the male science dude? I'm not sure what the controversy is.

[seaotter]

Isn't big bang theory equally stereotypical of the male science dude? I'm not sure what the controversy is.

Again I don't think anyone said this. She said in light of the clips she saw the speakers comments (Is he a skeptic?) touched a nerve.

[MisterMarc]

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

Come on, that's just not being fair. There are higher standards for being a speaker at such an event than just having "ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group."

I agree. But those are possible... so before we can perform the experiment about whether TAM is racist/sexist in the selection process, we need to know what the criteria are. How do you think the short list for speakers is generated? Would anyone who knows about the process be likely to answer here?

Yeah, probably not likely. My point was really that theorizing about the selection process being biased is unfair until we have the facts. As Steve noted in the talk, they supposedly invited several female speakers who didn't accept.

[KarenX]

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism.

I've been mulling it over and I've decided I disagree. Perhaps "science" is such a broad term that we are having a semantic disagreement, rather than a conceptual one. You can be skeptical about everything, but just being critical thinkers or applying skepticism about something doesn't make it science.

That is all.

Show me the list of possible speakers by race and sex, show me who was invited, and show me the final list of speakers. THEN I'll decide if TAM is racist/sexist in it's selection process. Frankly...I'm skeptical.

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

Yes it does. Science is a philosophy of investigation involving critical thinking and evidence.

So you'd call the investigation of who wrote the Shakespeare plays science? I'll accept a yes answer, although I think that would be a definition of science far broader than common usage.

[seaotter]

I guess I'm just saying that science is at the heart of skepticism.

I've been mulling it over and I've decided I disagree. Perhaps "science" is such a broad term that we are having a semantic disagreement, rather than a conceptual one. You can be skeptical about everything, but just being critical thinkers or applying skepticism about something doesn't make it science.

That is all.

Show me the list of possible speakers by race and sex, show me who was invited, and show me the final list of speakers. THEN I'll decide if TAM is racist/sexist in it's selection process. Frankly...I'm skeptical.

These requirements are too broad. Any person who has ever taught a class or run a community skeptical group could have been a "possible speaker." But it's a good question. Who generates the possible invite list?

Yes it does. Science is a philosophy of investigation involving critical thinking and evidence.

So you'd call the investigation of who wrote the Shakespeare plays science? I'll accept a yes answer, although I think that would be a definition of science far broader than common usage.

Well yes. Any investigation that proposes a hypothesis and then seeks to disprove it is using science. Is not archeology a science?

[Hanes]

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 think the comment you are referencing was specifically referencing a response by the women to Steve's question, "Do you think there is any lingering sexism within skepticism itself?"

The response was, "I think there definitely is."

Then to Steve's question, "Do you think you've been held back in any way?"

"It's a much quieter, slightly more insidious kind of sexism."

What is sexism if not persecution and ostracism?

[Belgarath]

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 think the comment you are referencing was specifically referencing a response by the women to Steve's question, "Do you think there is any lingering sexism within skepticism itself?"

The response was, "I think there definitely is."

Then to Steve's question, "Do you think you've been held back in any way?"

"It's a much quieter, slightly more insidious kind of sexism."

What is sexism if not persecution and ostracism?

Which makes me think that it's quite possible that those who are always looking for the '-isms' in the world may very well be victims of confirmation bias.

[Hanes]

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 think the comment you are referencing was specifically referencing a response by the women to Steve's question, "Do you think there is any lingering sexism within skepticism itself?"

The response was, "I think there definitely is."

Then to Steve's question, "Do you think you've been held back in any way?"

"It's a much quieter, slightly more insidious kind of sexism."

What is sexism if not persecution and ostracism?

Which makes me think that it's quite possible that those who are always looking for the '-isms' in the world may very well be victims of confirmation bias.

That was kind of my point, though I probably failed to get it across.  I was pretty pissed off.

(happy birthday by the way! )

[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 think the comment you are referencing was specifically referencing a response by the women to Steve's question, "Do you think there is any lingering sexism within skepticism itself?"

The response was, "I think there definitely is."

Then to Steve's question, "Do you think you've been held back in any way?"

"It's a much quieter, slightly more insidious kind of sexism."

What is sexism if not persecution and ostracism?

I'm not arguing here but, condescension? what they were describing and again I'm in no position to speak on this, sounds similar to what I've experienced with racists who don't know they are. Ya know the "well joe I know you are black and a great guy but your the exception kind of thing."