Topic: Coffee loving Skeptic PZ Meyers issue

[ting-bu-dong]

They are where they are because in the past they have made valuable contributions and because people pay attention to them, and what they do does reflect on skepticism in general. They don't have to be elected for them to be the public face of skepticism as far as, for instance, the media are concerned (the current round of drama got started in part because Rebecca said in a newspaper interview that skepticism wasn't safe for women). This kind of thing also gives ammunition to quacks who can deflect any criticism by pointing out how unserious skeptics are.

It all depends on what you want skepticism to be. If it's a venue for astrophysics trivia and dilution jokes (and there is nothing wrong with either), then this kind of thing is irrelevant noise. But if you (a) like the community in general and/or (b) think that good can come from skeptical activism (whether it's making sure that tax money isn't spent on quackery or providing a counterweight to popular nonsense that makes the world a dumber place), then recent events do have ramifications, and caring about them and wanting to avoid them in the future is entirely reasonable.

[MisterMarc]

Surprise! A skepti-scandal with RW and PZ behind it. Color me shocked.

The sceptical community didn't want to have PZ or Rebecca as leaders, they are leaders because they are famous.

Precisely. Which is a pretty good argument for ignoring them...so they aren't famous anymore. I unfollowed both ages ago, and don't visit either of their blogs. I don't care for their rhetorical style.

[Belgarath]

Well, we tend to make them our representatives by following them and reading them.  That creates the popularity.  Note, for example, how Michael Richards and Mel Gibson have fallen from favor because no one listens to them anymore.

[Eternally Learning]

I have to respectfully disagree with this being "just" a drama.

Whether we like it or not, these people represent us and it's entirely appropriate to care about the image they convey through their public behaviour.

The problem is that these are still private individuals with blogs and not elected representatives, for lack of a better term. The sceptical community didn't want to have PZ or Rebecca as leaders, they are leaders because they are famous. They don't necessarily feel that they have to behave in a responsible manner and we are in no position to ask that of them. They are just two people with blogs who get to say whatever they want. The problem is that it's their message that immediately reaches tens of thousands of people.

I think that if they don't feel a measure of responsibility for being among the most visible of us who shaoe the opinions of those less so, then I would have even less respect for them.  The lack of self-reflection and self-correction on even the tiniest mistakes from these major figures in all this has been the most depressing part for me.  I expect crap like that from polticians, religious leaders, business people, and so on, but if one group in this world should be expected to be better than that, it's skeptics.

[Eternally Learning]

Ugh, just read the article OP put up...  Where's that disallusioned thread again?

[superdave]

I've been spoiled by Steve Novella.  I could never imagine him blogging or tweeting such comments and that's the kind of blog I like to read.  But the abrasive style works with certain kinds people. 

I just hope that PZ and RW recognize that the road they are heading down is this

[Rai]

Precisely. Which is a pretty good argument for ignoring them...so they aren't famous anymore. I unfollowed both ages ago, and don't visit either of their blogs. I don't care for their rhetorical style.

Yup. The more people become disillusioned with them, the less of an effect they'll have. I'm sure that there are plenty of atheist and feminist activists in the sceptical community who can behave much more maturely.


Also, when exactly did PZ become a sceptic leader? He was always more like a leftwing, atheistic Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs Fame) who was more concerned with his pet topic (religion is bad) and hobbies (squids) than scepticism. Hell, Charles Johnson probably contributed more to scepticism than PZ, now that I think about it.

[Citizen Skeptic]

I have to respectfully disagree with this being "just" a drama.

Whether we like it or not, these people represent us and it's entirely appropriate to care about the image they convey through their public behaviour.

They don't represent me. Who elected them leaders?

[Eternally Learning]

I have to respectfully disagree with this being "just" a drama.

Whether we like it or not, these people represent us and it's entirely appropriate to care about the image they convey through their public behaviour.

They don't represent me. Who elected them leaders?

It's a de facto representation.  If you are not in this community, you will likely judge members like us by those of us most visible.  In otherwords, Conservapedia has an article on PZ, not me.

[Eternally Learning]

I've been spoiled by Steve Novella.  I could never imagine him blogging or tweeting such comments and that's the kind of blog I like to read. 

This plus 1000.  Steve's the reason I was drawn to the community and still it's best example IMO.  That's over Randi, Grothe, Meyers, Dunning, and all of them.  The only complaint I have of him spawns from this whole mess; that he seems to shy away from internal conflict which he is in a position to mitigate, but I can hardly blame him as there are wolf den on every side in this issue.

[Belgarath]

I think Steve can't really say anything, especially if he were going to even gently chide Rebecca for her behavior.

[ting-bu-dong]

Steve's the reason I was drawn to the community and still it's best example IMO.

Add Massimo Pigliucci to that list.

[superdave]

Going to throw Eugenie Scott in there too.

[seaotter]

Well, we tend to make them our representatives by following them and reading them.  That creates the popularity.  Note, for example, how Michael Richards and Mel Gibson have fallen from favor because no one listens to them anymore.

This. Stop listening to them and they become two folks with blogs.

Oh and go back and read the kerfuffle thread. Seems to be some hypocrisy on when folks don't represent "us" well depending on the target of the vitriol? Told y'all.

[Eternally Learning]

I think Steve can't really say anything, especially if he were going to even gently chide Rebecca for her behavior.

Well, like I said; wolf dens and I don't blame him.  It definitely wouldn't be easy to do, but I have to believe she respects him which hopefully means criticism from him would cause her to think twice about how she's doing what she's doing.  If she wouldn't consider his opinion just because it differed from her own, then I would lose pretty much all respect left for her.  Now that I think about it, I doubt he's the type to say something publically so who knows what he's done or not done.

Add Massimo Pigliucci to that list.

Going to throw Eugenie Scott in there too.

I'm down with that.  There are other examples too, but Steve's is still the most consistently pitch-perfect.  That may just be bias on the part of him being my first though.