|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
18th July 2010, 12:27 PM | #201 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,491
|
There are also those people who register on-site as well.
|
__________________
"I think most of us would be horrified to meet ourselves and discover what everyone else already knows about us." - Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes |
|
18th July 2010, 03:26 PM | #202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
18th July 2010, 03:35 PM | #203 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
18th July 2010, 04:14 PM | #204 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 581
|
|
18th July 2010, 04:29 PM | #205 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
|
18th July 2010, 04:29 PM | #206 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
18th July 2010, 05:00 PM | #207 |
TAM Volunteer Guy
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: north of Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,997
|
We have asked sizes on the registration form at some TAMs. It seems sporadic. Yes, I asked all the volunteers what size they wanted so we wouldn't waste any of them. I'm glad you got a small, paperskater.
We ran out of small shirts first, then medium shirts later. One thing I noticed with the volunteers this year is that the average size got smaller. It may be due to having more women attend, or maybe skeptics have just gotten in better shape since TAM7. The sizes were not printed on the badges. While we could have looked you up on the master list, it was easier to simply ask people what size they wanted. I'm sure the entries on the registration form were used to decide what to order. At least I hope they were. |
__________________
-- Scott |
|
19th July 2010, 03:52 AM | #208 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
Then you move to the next room.
I don't understand why we haven't been told this story yet. Not only is it a solution, it's pretty much the only possible solution. The problem is that you can't just throw out people who are already at the top of their field. If 90% of professors are male, you can't just fire half of them and replace them with women, you have to wait until they are no longer professors. Generally you only have to wait for people to retire rather than actually die, but the principle is the same. In addition to that, you can't choose new professors based on gender, race, or whatever, because that would be doing exactly what you are supposedly trying to avoid. You can't solve discrimination by simply discriminating in the opposite direction. This makes things even slower, since even if things are now exactly equal, once half those professors have left, half of the new ones will be male and there still won't be equal numbers of men and women. The problem is that many people don't seem to understand what a slow process change often has to be. They want equality now and think that means having equal proportions right now. But what it actually means is just that everyone has equal opportunities now. The actual proportions in jobs will only change over a long period of time as the people who currently hold those jobs leave. And of course, that ignores all the issues about men and women actually being different, and the questions of how much of preferences for particular jobs is genetic as opposed to environmental. As well as how much we can, or even should, try to actively change things as opposed to merely removing the discrimination and letting things sort themselves out. This is a good point. Someone brought me my badges while I was working on registration, but I struggled to find the table later since it was hidden right at the end past all the other tables and the actual presentations. It was only by making a deliberate effort during a break and ignoring all the shiny things on the way that I was actually able to track it down. For people who are already members that may be enough, but we're unlikely to attract many more people with it hidden like that.
Quote:
While I missed this panel (stupid mornings), I think this actually sounds entirely representative. This is the whole problem with climate "skepticism" - there's rarely anything vaguely skeptical about it. The vast majority of it really does just consist of vague insinuations about conspiracies along with various other unfounded and unsupported claims. There's plenty of room for discussion about the actual science, but almost all the legitimate discussion is about exactly what will happen, how fast it will happen and what we might be able to do about it. Perhaps he wasn't great in terms of providing good discussion in the panel, but if he got people to realise just how silly and unskeptical most of the climate change denial is then I'd say it could well have been worthwhile. I saw that almost exactly the opposite way around. DJ pointed out the blatant hypocrisy Dawkins was saying and was desperately trying to get him out of, and Dawkins just insisted on making himself look like a complete ass. I've always been a fan of Dawkins based on his biological work, but I've never really paid much attention to his religion bashing. That interview really brought home just how much of a fanatical hypocrite he is when talking about religion. He should stick to the science. When he talks like that, he just gives skeptics and atheists a bad name. Clearly the obesity epidemic is working properly. We need people to eat more so we can stop worrying about sizes and just order XL for everyone.
Quote:
Incidentally, I've found another thing that didn't work - the USB stick. It doesn't fit in a USB socket. It's not bent or anything, it's just the wrong size. Very odd. |
19th July 2010, 04:15 AM | #209 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
19th July 2010, 06:18 AM | #210 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
That might be true in the professional field, but the panel was about women in skepticism not women in science in general. In skepticism they can totally step it and and do talks, there's a huge hole to fill for doing talks for local groups, and it's easy to get talks on the big stage if you know what you're doing.
As has been pointed out before, TAM7 would have had more women, but the ones that the JREF reached out to said they didn't want to speak, or backed out later. They have a platform in this community, but they're just not using it for some reason. |
19th July 2010, 04:05 PM | #211 |
is not a radish
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,142
|
|
19th July 2010, 05:09 PM | #212 |
TAM Volunteer Guy
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: north of Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,997
|
I agree. TAM will fail without the help of so many people: Allison, Jeff, Hal, Deanna (she was so much better than we paid for), the Kings, Austin (he donated his time to be the press coordinator -- if you weren't press or a speaker you probably never dealt with him), etc.
|
__________________
-- Scott |
|
19th July 2010, 06:17 PM | #213 |
Magician Among Spirits
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 846
|
|
19th July 2010, 07:41 PM | #214 |
Black-and-white Cat-foot
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,299
|
The tee shirt conversation reminded me of something I forgot to mention: whoever designed this year's logo did a great job. Admittedly I usually save my TAM t-shirts to wear to bed, but not this one.
Somebody on Twitter posted a picture of their teenaged son wearing an "emo" version of the shirt (by pairing it with a wool cap, sneakers and a hangdog expression), which I think speaks to the coolness of this year's design. |
__________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." -- Tracy Jordan |
|
19th July 2010, 08:01 PM | #215 |
List Management
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Under the rainbow
Posts: 5,387
|
|
__________________
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. - Mark Twain |
|
19th July 2010, 09:38 PM | #216 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
20th July 2010, 06:04 PM | #217 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 445
|
I have a mixed opinion of the workshops. From what I can tell they were well attended, so they were probably a money maker for the JREF. However, some of them were not much different than the main presentations so it is not clear to me why they required a separate cost.
The juggling workshop lived up to my definition of a workshop - concrete instruction and materials (JREF juggling balls) to take home with you. I was surprised the other workshops did not provide books, DVDs or some other take away to justify the cost. |
__________________
"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." -Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S. (1809-1865) |
|
20th July 2010, 06:13 PM | #218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
Some people got to make Angry Vaginas.
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
20th July 2010, 06:32 PM | #219 |
Magician Among Spirits
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 846
|
|
20th July 2010, 07:30 PM | #220 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
|
20th July 2010, 07:39 PM | #221 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 581
|
The $10 was pretty fair - Goudeau donated the balls to the JREF, so it was a $10 (optional) donation. I mean, you could always pick up hand-made shiny balls instead, for a bit more than $10... shiny chainmail ball set
|
21st July 2010, 05:11 PM | #222 |
Cold-hearted skeptic
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,084
|
A few people have mentioned religion-bashing at TAM.
I am curious to know what this involved. Was it any different in tone or nature to the psychic-bashing and dowsing-bashing that I'm sure also takes place? I'd appreciate it if someone can provide examples/quotes of where they feel the line was crossed. The whole "skeptic-schism" thing has me fascinated. |
__________________
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? - May 26, 2006 - Sep 25, 2008. Gone but not forgotten. Shameless plug for my website: Digging Apollo - Excavating the digital archaeology of the Apollo program. |
|
21st July 2010, 05:13 PM | #223 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
|
21st July 2010, 05:21 PM | #224 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,634
|
good answer
also when Dawkins said the "number one" threat to the UK now was Islam, even moderate Islam. There was a kind of shiver that went through some people. How about saying "religion" or "Intolerance" or "too much time spent in pubs" or "inbreeding within the royal family"... or the breakdown of the National Health plan? Nope it's Islam. And he was very clear that tolerance of even any moderate version of any religion was as bad as tolerance of the most fundamental version of that religion. You an Episcopalian with a lesbian priest and a gay Bishop? Sorry... you are as guilty as the most violent fundamentalist snake handling faith healing nut jobs. Because just by attending ANY religious organization, be it Unitarian or Buddhist or Jedi...you are "supporting" the radical religions. But those ISLAMICS! There was kind of a hush as people wondered if he was going to suggest a "solution" to the "Islamic" problem in the UK. say an "Ultimate solution". eeeekkkkk!!! |
21st July 2010, 05:29 PM | #225 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
I assume this was the part that was deemed by some to have gone over the line, and I agree it sounds presumptious and should have been phrased better. But really, I can't agree that this kind of point or similar discussion (again, watching how it's put) should be frowned upon at all at a skeptics' conference. |
21st July 2010, 05:47 PM | #226 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
I never said that discussion should be frowned upon.. I didn't hear anybody complaining when people brought up testing specific claims from specific religions. Claims of miracles for example.
But what if my view of God is that it was something that created the universe, set things in motion, then vanished. What if praying for me is a cultural thing more than a super natural thing? Something that helps center me or clear my mind. There seemed to be an air that all of that is bad. What was funny was when Dawkins said that he didn't see the point of science fiction and fantasy books there was a bit of a buzz on twitter about that.. But even Dawkins said that most concepts of God are untestable. |
21st July 2010, 05:47 PM | #227 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
"I might retort that such hostility as I or other atheists occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 282 ETA: I might add that if you absolutely don't want to hear strongly anti-religious comments, one suggestion is to not invite Richard Dawkins to your conference! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F |
21st July 2010, 05:50 PM | #228 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,634
|
yeah and I think a lot of people feel that things like the alternative medicine crisis, and the anti vaxxers... are a good focus of skeptic energy. Atheism is a very personal thing. Point is there is NO church of atheism. I know atheist anti vaxxers, and the town chiropractor is an atheist. So atheism as some sort of litmus test of critical thinking skills isn't perfect.
|
21st July 2010, 05:56 PM | #229 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
21st July 2010, 05:56 PM | #230 |
Cold-hearted skeptic
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,084
|
Yeah, I suppose. After all, whenever a psychic fails a test, they immediately accept the result and stop claiming they have psychic powers.
Quote:
|
__________________
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? - May 26, 2006 - Sep 25, 2008. Gone but not forgotten. Shameless plug for my website: Digging Apollo - Excavating the digital archaeology of the Apollo program. |
|
21st July 2010, 06:03 PM | #231 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
21st July 2010, 07:20 PM | #232 |
Cold-hearted skeptic
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,084
|
Hmmm... You may be right. I'll wait for Sc00ter to clarify.
And to clarify my own position, I'm not looking to get into a religious argument here. I legitimately want to know what theists are taking objection to. If it's along the lines of "Theists are stupid", then I would be on their side. If, OTOH, it is just general discussion of religion in the same way we might discuss homeopathy, then I think they are the ones who are out of line. |
__________________
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? - May 26, 2006 - Sep 25, 2008. Gone but not forgotten. Shameless plug for my website: Digging Apollo - Excavating the digital archaeology of the Apollo program. |
|
21st July 2010, 08:06 PM | #233 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
|
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
22nd July 2010, 01:39 AM | #234 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
Did I say that they would? Why would that matter, it's about evidence. By doing the test we gather data and evidence. It's not always (I would say hardly ever) about convincing the person we're testing, it's about showing others.
Quote:
|
22nd July 2010, 01:51 AM | #235 |
Cold-hearted skeptic
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,084
|
Once again, another strawman. I have never claimed, and would never claim, to know, as a matter of absolute knowledge, that a god doesn't exist. I simply don't believe one does.
There is a big difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge. For instance; I wouldn't claim as a matter of absolute knowledge, as it appears you do, that something is unknowable. |
__________________
Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers? - May 26, 2006 - Sep 25, 2008. Gone but not forgotten. Shameless plug for my website: Digging Apollo - Excavating the digital archaeology of the Apollo program. |
|
22nd July 2010, 04:05 AM | #236 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
But that's what was coming off during TAM by quite a bit of the atheists at the conference, including some of the speakers. This has been a bit of a debate for TAMOz as well, that to be a true skeptic, to reach the pinnacle, you must become an atheist.
Quote:
But I still come to my example of what some people think of as god. Something that was around, generated the universe, and then was gone (vanished, died off, on the outside of viewable space, in a different universe, whatever). Please explain to me how you could possibly test that? I'm not saying that there isn't, and I'd like to know how, but I can't think of any way to test that. To make it even more simplistic, my grandfather lost his arm in some type of accident before my father was born. I've heard the stories of how he lost his arm, but the only people that were there at the time was him, and the guy driving the car. They're both dead, all I have is 3rd hand accounts at best, but that doesn't necessarily tell me what actually happened, and there's no way for me to ever find out. I accept the story because it's plausible. |
22nd July 2010, 06:07 AM | #237 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
Have to say I have no idea. Other than Dawkins, I didn't notice any at all.
You mean like the big bang, or inflation? Those were around, generated the universe, and are now gone. Yet they make plenty of falsifiable predictions and are constantly being tested in various ways. This is one of the big problems with the "god of the gaps" argument that is so popular these days. It's not just that constantly squashing god into smaller and smaller gaps where we can't yet conclusively prove he isn't hiding proves what a useless concept god is and is often in direct contradiction to most of the claims made by the people who do this, it's that the gaps they're trying to squash him into often don't actually exist at all. In addition, the whole idea of testability misses an extremely important point. Skepticism isn't about testing explicit claims. The basic idea behind skepticism is simply to follow the evidence. When it comes to a god of the gaps, there is no evidence, and cannot be any by definition since as soon as any evidence turns up he just gets moved to a different gap. We don't need any testable claims to see that there is no evidence, and believing in something despite a complete lack of evidence is not skeptical, pretty much by definition. Note that I am in no way saying we should exclude religious people. There is no such thing as a True Skeptictm, everyone is less skeptical in some areas than others, even if they may not realise it. What I am saying is that religion should not get any special treatment. The fact is that if you are religious, you are not skeptical when it comes to religion, or at least to certain aspects of at least one particular religion. That's not a personal attack, it's a simple logical conclusion based on what skepticism and religion actually are. It's no different from saying someone who thinks there might be something to astrology is not skeptical in that area, even if they're the greatest skeptic in the world when it comes to homeopathy and conspiracies. The only difference with religion is that some people seem to think that if anyone suggests that just maybe believing in something without any evidence to support it isn't entirely skeptical, this constitutes a terrible personal attack and amounts to them being excluded from everything. In fact, I think part of the problem is the idea of being "a skeptic". Really, there is no such thing. Everyone is skeptical to a greater or lesser extent, and everyone applies skepticism in different amounts to different things. A religious person can still be skeptical about dowsing, just as an astrologer can still be skeptical about homeopathy. I think a large part of the disagreement here is that people seem to think that if they admit to not being skeptical about religion, that means they are no longer "a skeptic" and will have to hand in their badges and be excluded. That's just not the case. If someone admits to not being skeptical about religion, it means they've admitted to not being skeptical about religion. It says very little about their skepticism in any other area. Skeptical organisations like the JREF do not exclude religious people any more than they exclude psychics, dowsers, homeopaths, and any other believers. But that does not mean that religious beliefs will be given a free pass and not be addressed at all. Sadly though, they do tend to be addressed less often and openly due to huge political power religion has, and the outrage that tends to be expressed when they are criticised. |
22nd July 2010, 06:16 AM | #238 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
I still think there is a difference.. I can say to a dowser "I don't believe in dowsing, because in every single, scientifically controlled, double blinded test, it fails"
I can say to a religious person "I don't believe that payer works because it also fails double blinded, scientifically controlled tests" But when it comes to the basic idea of "god", I can't really draw on those things. All I can honestly say is "I don't know" In fact, I prefer the description that Jeff gave during a Rational Alchemy episode of being a "Scientific Naturalist" over Atheist. I'm starting to feel that Atheism, especially in the skeptical movement is getting very heavy handed and downright annoying. I might just got the Scientific Naturalist route, or just say screw it and be agnostic again. |
22nd July 2010, 06:26 AM | #239 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
22nd July 2010, 06:31 AM | #240 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 315
|
Ahh! Very nice. I will say this. I don't believe in ghosts the way they are explained in popular culture. That is floating spirits or things that throw objects around. They have not been observed properly.
But if you explain ghosts as a spirit that is invisible to everything, have the ability to pass through matter and "walk" among us.. Then I really don't know, but would say it's unlikely. If you noticed, I had to define what it is we're talking about first. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|