Growing anti-science stance in "skeptic community"

[Zython]

I think he fears that conservatives will sink to the same level of intellectual dishonesty as the lefties as a fed-up counterreaction to the thoroughly politicezed far-left pseudoscientific bullshit that range from gender studies to genetics and attempts to rewrite historical facts. That would be a shame indeed.

Again, just because you don't understand something or it doesn't mesh with your worldview doesn't make it false.

[Masark]

That's not real, right? Please tell me it's real.

It's a piece of nonsense (typically computer-generated) submitted to a journal to check if their peer review process is working.

In this case, it showed their process needs improvement.

[Spectral]

Again, just because you don't understand something or it doesn't mesh with your worldview doesn't make it false.

In the case of feminist glaciology, a better term than "false" would be "not even wrong" - it's just blatantly nonsensical.

But yes, I know, it's super deep and it totally rings true to you man.

[Zython]

In the case of feminist glaciology, a better term than "false" would be "not even wrong" - it's just blatantly nonsensical.

But yes, I know, it's super deep and it totally rings true to you man.

Your complains have just been a constant Dunning-Kruger effect. "It HAS to be bullshit because I don't immediately understand it."

- - - Updated - - -

It's a piece of nonsense (typically computer-generated) submitted to a journal to check if their peer review process is working.

In this case, it showed their process needs improvement.

[citation needed]

[Wikiy]

Can someone please explain to me, a genuine skeptic, what the fuck this "skeptic community" is and how they have managed to hijack the term?

[Zython]

Can someone please explain to me, a genuine skeptic, what the fuck this "skeptic community" is and how they have managed to hijack the term?

Alt-righters pretending to be centrists, primarily.

[Deleted]

I'd recommend this super fun Twitter for hilarious examples.

To be clear, you won't find it actually intruding on real sciences, just absolutely ridiculous PoMo trash grifting at universities with nonsense like this:

So not what you said that prompted my original reply.

[Deleted]

And if all the evidence of climate change was that one storm, I'd agree.

But I'm not citing Hurricane Sandy as "proof of climate change". The accusation was that we didn't see a cataclysmic storm hitting a major city in the decade since Gore's film. Hurricane Sandy was a record-setting cataclysmic storm, and it hit NYC (primarily, but also a lot of NY State). Gore was right on that particular prediction.

No, He wasn't - No more than i'm 'Right' in the prediction that the sun will come up tomorrow, that is, it's trivially true, but meaningless.
A blind donkey can predict a hurricane hitting NY.

Only if you have no idea what "climate" is. Climate is long-term trends over 5+ years, not single-year aberrations. A single year being oddly warm or cold, returning to normal temperatures the next year, is not evidence of any climate change. Just that the weather was oddly cold that one year.

'oddly warm' - Dude, there were no fucking summer.
And besides, You do recall me saying that this wasn't the only instance?

3> The climate has never changed as rapidly as it is currently, in response to natural cycles.

You see the second half of the sentence, which you didn't underline?

because it was false - The climate has changed more rapidly.
I will wholeheartedly agree that those all had specific causation that were clearly noticeable - Several of which counts as natural, and cyclical.
I do not dispute that CO2 emissions (and other compounds) are heating the earth, and the climate is changing faster than at any other know point in time.
Excluding specific events, all either catastrophic, or short term, like the year with no summer (whether or not this one counts as climate really isn't the point).
I should have dropped this one, its just pedantry, I was only really interested in the Gore and 'solution bit' anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much every nation in the world in on board. Including China and India. Africa, of course, isn't a single country, but those nations are also on board. Pretty much the only country where climate change denial gets any traction is the USA, and pretty much solely because of ExxonMobil's funding of denier propaganda to cloud the issue, much as was done with tobacco a few decades ago.

Exactly what are they doing about it thought? (Cashing foreign aid is the answer).

- - - Updated - - -

Alt-righters pretending to be centrists, primarily.

The skeptic community has exited far longer than the Alt-right being a term right?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, just because you don't understand something or it doesn't mesh with your worldview doesn't make it false.

You do know that PoMo explicitly rejects the notion of the very concept of 'false' and 'correct'?

- - - Updated - - -

Your complains have just been a constant Dunning-Kruger effect. "It HAS to be bullshit because I don't immediately understand it."
[citation needed]

Wait - you are seriously defending:

Glaciers, gender, and science
A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

How does human's and Ice interact?
What gender does Ice have?
How is Power defined, Visa-vi Ice and Human interaction?
How is current 'Ice' science, unjust and inequitable?

- - - Updated - - -

So not what you said that prompted my original reply.

"postmodern sociology wank infiltrating into physics" really? I'm a physicist, i've never seen any such thing.
Have you ever been to a conference where you note that the attendees are predominantly men, yet, magically the speakers and panelist seems to contain a much greater ratio of Women than in the Audience?
That's how.

[Spectral]

So not what you said that prompted my original reply.

I don't think I said anything that prompted your original reply and you're confusing posters.

- - - Updated - - -

Can someone please explain to me, a genuine skeptic, what the fuck this "skeptic community" is and how they have managed to hijack the term?

As a generality, very little good comes from some group referring to themselves as the "XXX community".

[Aleksej89]

SJWs are usually people with quite a few mental issues.

Normal people tend to ignore or avoid communication with such nutters.
Mostly because they don't want to bother with crazies and have better things to do.

People who are willing to argue that much with SJW about whatever nonsense they are spouting are probably just as insane.
It is as if you started arguing with one of the homeless "doomsayers" on the streets, and then you continued doing it for years and then made a youtube career out of it.

At least they are getting some money from ads and what not, drama sells.

[Alydael]

That's what could be labeled as true skeptics, those who criticize and question with the use of the scientific method.

These self-identified "skeptics" tend to not mostly make videos in response to SJWs. Although as one person pointed out a lot of them use to make anti-religion videos.

If someone was not employing the scientific method- I wouldn't trust their findings.

Skeptics are important though. We need people to question things (even if they are wrong or sloppy in doing so). When people start blindly accepting things we will get ourselves into trouble.

[ItachiZaku]

I'm honestly starting to think we need to build a giant dome out of concrete, stick all the stupid people in it with pointy sticks, a week's worth of rations and a smallpox blanket. Let them pray or deny their way out of that.

That dome would be huge. There wouldn't be too many people left outside of the dome.

[Deleted]

I don't think I said anything that prompted your original reply and you're confusing posters.

- - - Updated - - -


As a generality, very little good comes from some group referring to themselves as the "XXX community".

Apologies for my confusion.

[Ethris]

And your proof this has actually happened somewhere is?

You have zero reading comprehension. I said multiple times that it hasn't happened yet to physics, but there's no question that it will at some point. The site www.ostem.com is a thing, you know; and while harmless advocacy is not a problem, this will invariably lead to the same kind of identity warfare that has overrun the humanities.

Because I'm pretty sure I've missed hearing about physics departments being over run by radical feminists. Why has Fox news failed with regards to this? They seem to manage to dig up lefty conspiracies every where else.

>fox news

I don't know, I haven't been keeping up with Tucker Carlson because I've been too busy driving my tractor, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's because physics is well-insulated against this kind of stuff at the moment because you typically have to be good at science in order to gain traction with physicists. However, privilege shaming works on them all the same, especially if you start cutting their funding to their departments because they're not "diverse" enough (which is laughable, because if you wanted more diversity in physics departments at this point, that would mean actually adding "white people").

A lot of right wing "Dangers" seem to consist of everyone but themselves being blind unquestioning robots that will unhesitatingly obey their marching orders from whatever the evil conspiracy is this week.

Oh no the spooky right wing boogeymen oh noooooooo

Boy it sure is easier to argue against points, when you reduce them to "blah blah blah".

I have to confess I have no counter to your use of all caps in a large point size. I surrender to your superior typography.

That's because you don't read what people post anyway.

[Akainakali]

You have zero reading comprehension. I said multiple times that it hasn't happened yet to physics, but there's no question that it will at some point. The site www.ostem.com is a thing, you know; and while harmless advocacy is not a problem, this will invariably lead to the same kind of identity warfare that has overrun the humanities.

I have in general found that right wingers like yourself, usually are accusing others of what they are doing. In this case lack of reading comprehension.

I don't see any reason to panic over a 5 yr old report about a obscure academic, who wrote something you don't like, which has had zero effect since it was written and shows no signs of having an effect.

Academics write stuff like this ALL THE TIME, it's one of their purposes in life. Navel gazing papers about obscure subjects that have little to no relevance to the real world is basically what they do.

Yet you don't seem terribly concerned about the very real assault on science (and facts) that is going on currently. I know which one I'm going to worry about.

>fox news

I don't know, I haven't been keeping up with Tucker Carlson because I've been too busy driving my tractor, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's because physics is well-insulated against this kind of stuff at the moment because you typically have to be good at science in order to gain traction with physicists. However, privilege shaming works on them all the same, especially if you start cutting their funding to their departments because they're not "diverse" enough (which is laughable, because if you wanted more diversity in physics departments at this point, that would mean actually adding "white people").

Yup, you're a trump supporter alright.

Oh no the spooky right wing boogeymen oh noooooooo

Again, what was that you were saying about lack of reading comprehension? I was talking about things like your little freak out over a meaningless paper by a navel gazing academic with no power or influence over anyone, other than maybe their students.

Not a right wing conspiracy, the things the right wing THINKS are conspiracies or threats.

That's because you don't read what people post anyway.

What can I say Mr. Pot.

[Ethris]

I have in general found that right wingers like yourself

This is news to me.

usually are accusing others of what they are doing. In this case lack of reading comprehension.

I'm not projecting to mask that I didn't read what you wrote (which is weird, because I'm quoting and directly responding to it instead of replacing everything you say with "blah blah blah" and not actually addressing the points); I'm saying you literally didn't read what I wrote, and if you did, you didn't understand it.

Academics write stuff like this ALL THE TIME, it's one of their purposes in life. Navel gazing papers about obscure subjects that have little to no relevance to the real world is basically what they do.

So it is the job of academics to come up with unsubstantiated, unsourced nonsense that people can easily misinterpret and run away with?

Yet you don't seem terribly concerned about the very real assault on science (and facts) that is going on currently. I know which one I'm going to worry about.

I'm just going to quote you again here for dramatic effect because you literally contradicted yourself in the span of one sentence:

Academics write stuff like this ALL THE TIME, it's one of their purposes in life. Navel gazing papers about obscure subjects that have little to no relevance to the real world is basically what they do.

Sounds like "academics" are assaulting science just fine all by themselves.

Yup, you're a trump supporter alright.

Also news to me.

Again, what was that you were saying about lack of reading comprehension? I was talking about things like your little freak out over a meaningless paper by a navel gazing academic with no power or influence over anyone, other than maybe their students.

Not a right wing conspiracy, the things the right wing THINKS are conspiracies or threats.

But no, really, Exxon Mobil is buying the silence of climate scientists and geologists while putting out fake reports that everything is fine with the climate. In all seriousness we can't let this guy get the nuclear codes.

What can I say Mr. Pot.

Call me /pol/ Pot please.

[Akainakali]

This is news to me.

I'm not projecting to mask that I didn't read what you wrote (which is weird, because I'm quoting and directly responding to it instead of replacing everything you say with "blah blah blah" and not actually addressing the points); I'm saying you literally didn't read what I wrote, and if you did, you didn't understand it.

You do realize what you've typed doesn't disappear once you've typed it? My actual post.

This is a reference to a 5 year old article, that ONLY seems to get mentioned on highly conservative web pages. Which seems to be pretty much standard for conservatives "LOOK!!! I found some obscure person saying something wacky and objectionable, therefore ALL LIBERALS ARE BAD!!!!".

Yet, I don't recall seeing Physics over the past 5 years, collapsing due to this assault on it.

You don't seem very concerned by the very real abuses and dangers by republicans involved in constant assaults on science they don't like though. Such as Scott Pruit removing climate change data from government servers, the republican senator who likes to demand that scientists who produce reports he doesn't like appear before his committee, the constant pushes to teach creationism in public schools.

Yes, clearly this is all an equal threat to some obscure academic writing a paper about a field she doesn't even work in.

What you changed my post to, with your kind of emphasis added and a bit more.

Quote Originally Posted by Akainakali View Post
This is a reference to a 5 year old article, that ONLY seems to get mentioned on highly conservative web pages....blah blah blah

You were complaining about my replacing what you said with blah blah blah?

Sure the premise is slightly ridiculous, until it happens to find its way to your school's human resources advisor who doesn't know anything about science and suddenly thinks the physics department has been indoctrinating students with evil *wait for it* RIGHT WING CAPITALIST PATRIARCHAL RACIST BIGOTED HOMOPHOBIC MISOGYNISTIC PROPAGANDA

EDIT--

I FORGOT ISLAMOPHOBIC

This is what I replaced with blah blah blah.

I actually copied the "blah blah blah" directly from what you had replaced what I said with. Obviously the point was completely lost on you. The above was in any case just you regurgitating the same thing once again, in bigger type.

So yah, you're doing exactly what you accuse others of.

So it is the job of academics to come up with unsubstantiated, unsourced nonsense that people can easily misinterpret and run away with?

I've expressed quite clearly what I meant, if you can't comprehend that. I can't really help you.

I'm just going to quote you again here for dramatic effect because you literally contradicted yourself in the span of one sentence:

Academics write stuff like this ALL THE TIME, it's one of their purposes in life. Navel gazing papers about obscure subjects that have little to no relevance to the real world is basically what they do.

Not seeing the contradiction in my statement.

[Zython]

The skeptic community has exited far longer than the Alt-right being a term right?

This gotcha only makes sense if you believe that the people that comprise the alt-right community didn't exist before alt-right was a thing.

[Deleted]

This gotcha only makes sense if you believe that the people that comprise the alt-right community didn't exist before alt-right was a thing.

you do know the skeptic community also had the Atheism+ crowd?
They left.
(they were wildly leftward).
So the group, which consists of 'proto-altrighters' also contained the atheism+ crowd?

[Zython]

you do know the skeptic community also had the Atheism+ crowd?
They left.
(they were wildly leftward).
So the group, which consists of 'proto-altrighters' also contained the atheism+ crowd?

No, just the ones that chased out Atheism+, and who now make up the Skeptic community.