[mikema63]

Are we talking about evolution now?

Epigenetics doesn't counter evolution. It's just another layer of processing that modulates Gene expression but it's ultimately encoded in our DNA. The only reason we don't call them genes as well is because they don't code for proteins directly.

[jakell]

I did regard it as a fairly good attempt by Creationists, in this instance, to get scientists to show their working, I think this was regarding the E-Coli/citrate experiment. I don't recall the term 'epigenetics' being used, but the critique seemed based upon that.

A large amount of investigations into genomes to date will be based upon inferences from phenotypes, complete mapping of the genome is relatively new. So it was fair of Creationists to claim that it is possible that the genome hasn't changed (into a new species), but only gene expression. Only a proper genome map would confirm the actual changes.
The Evening Primrose one, the one that counted actual Chromosomes, did represent a case where an observable change in the genome took place, but I reckon there are not many instances where such coarsely observable changes occur, most of the time this would result in an non-viable or unstable organism.

Going on from this, even if genome changes were directly observed, Creationists could then claim that the new 'species' may be unstable and hasn't undergone thorough testing over a sufficient amount of time. (over)Diligent scientists may sigh and go on to devise even more fiendishly complex and long running experiments, but hopefully some may step back and try to take a wider view. they may realise that evolution (specifically speciation) may never be adequately proven, or rather that the feat of doing this may fall into the same Sysiphean category as fusion research where the returns are not worth the effort.
Upon realising this, the light may dawn that we don't need to prove evolution, just show that it is possible, it is a viable theory that has no antithesis, and no amount of Creationist arm-waving will change that.

[Igor Antunov]

New Atheism was co-opted by feminazis. It is no longer of any use to anyone.

[Pants-of-dog]

Dawkins is a feminazi? Lol.

[Perkwunos]

Dawkins is a feminazi? Lol.

No, but Rebecca Watson and a lot of these other odious characters are.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, it was so oppressive the way she, um, did something.

Sorry, what did she do that was so wrong?

[Perkwunos]

Yes, it was so oppressive the way she, um, did something.

Sorry, what did she do that was so wrong?

For me the most heinous thing that these people did was divert the (albeit even then limited) focus of the skeptic and atheist movements away from the goal of rational thought as such to a bunch of stupid pet ideological issues about which they became utterly dogmatic.

It's one of a number of things that eventually caused me to abandon the idea of secular humanism.

[skinster]

feminazis

Get off the internet

[mikema63]

Rebbeca Watson does short videos about feminism and skepticism on YouTube. If people like her ruined secular humanism for you then the dogmatic one who demands complete agreement of everyone around them to be happy might not be them.

[Perkwunos]

Rebbeca Watson does short videos about feminism and skepticism on YouTube. If people like her ruined secular humanism for you then the dogmatic one who demands complete agreement of everyone around them to be happy might not be them.

Well, it wasn't just her; nor was it just everyone like her. Over the years, I've realized that the vast majority of people fundamentally do not care about being rational. And secular humanists believe, emphatically, that humans are, by and large, far more than being just a few precious nucleotides away from howling and throwing shit at each other. This makes their point of view no better than a traditional religion. So why bother with it at all?

[Pants-of-dog]

For me the most heinous thing that these people did was divert the (albeit even then limited) focus of the skeptic and atheist movements away from the goal of rational thought as such to a bunch of stupid pet ideological issues about which they became utterly dogmatic.

It's one of a number of things that eventually caused me to abandon the idea of secular humanism.

This is not a bad thing in any objective sense. It is only a bad thing for those who have personal feeling about how awesome and important atheism is and how stupid and useless feminism is.

[Perkwunos]

This is not a bad thing in any objective sense. It is only a bad thing for those who have personal feeling about how awesome and important atheism is and how stupid and useless feminism is.

Well "listen and believe", "no platform", "it's not my job to educate you" (i.e. wrongly shifting burden of proof) etc. are all very serious impediments to rational thinking so, yeah, I do think feminism / SocJus is indeed pretty stupid and useless. More than stupid and useless in fact, actually highly detrimental.

[Perkwunos]

The psychologist Philip Tetlock is well-known for having authored Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? which is a rather academic treatise on how well various pundits and other professionals actually did predicting future events and also a more down-to-earth, practical guide to how one can actually improve one's own thinking about what is likely true or false, Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction.

The blurb from Amazon states:

"In this groundbreaking and accessible book, Tetlock and Gardner show us how we can learn from [the] elite group [of highly successful forecasters]. Weaving together stories of forecasting successes (the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound) and failures (the Bay of Pigs) and interviews with a range of high-level decision makers, from David Petraeus to Robert Rubin, they show that good forecasting doesn’t require powerful computers or arcane methods. It involves gathering evidence from a variety of sources, thinking probabilistically, working in teams, keeping score, and being willing to admit error and change course. Superforecasting offers the first demonstrably effective way to improve our ability to predict the future—whether in business, finance, politics, international affairs, or daily life—and is destined to become a modern classic."

So let's take stock of what feminists and the SocJus movement in general tend to do from that bolded list:

• Gather evidence from a variety of sources: no
• Think probabilistically: no
• Work in teams: yes, although they are highly dysfunctional
• Keep score: no
• Be willing to admit error or change course: hell no

They get half credit for the third criterion (and I'm being generous here) and zero for the others, for a total of 10/100. Final grade: F.

Why is it OK for these people to try to fill my head with shit?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well "listen and believe", "no platform", "it's not my job to educate you" (i.e. wrongly shifting burden of proof) etc. are all very serious impediments to rational thinking so, yeah, I do think feminism / SocJus is indeed pretty stupid and useless. More than stupid and useless in fact, actually highly detrimental.

Again, this is your opinion and not factual or based on logic.

[Perkwunos]

Again, this is your opinion and not factual or based on logic.

No, it's not just my opinion. Read the post I made right after this and answer the question that comes at the end of it.

Also before we go any further with "not based on logic", you need to define "logic", because I've noticed a lot of people have a habit of using that word without actually knowing what it means.

[Pants-of-dog]

The psychologist Philip Tetlock is well-known for having authored Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? which is a rather academic treatise on how well various pundits and other professionals actually did predicting future events and also a more down-to-earth, practical guide to how one can actually improve one's own thinking about what is likely true or false, Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction.

The blurb from Amazon states:

"In this groundbreaking and accessible book, Tetlock and Gardner show us how we can learn from [the] elite group [of highly successful forecasters]. Weaving together stories of forecasting successes (the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound) and failures (the Bay of Pigs) and interviews with a range of high-level decision makers, from David Petraeus to Robert Rubin, they show that good forecasting doesn’t require powerful computers or arcane methods. It involves gathering evidence from a variety of sources, thinking probabilistically, working in teams, keeping score, and being willing to admit error and change course. Superforecasting offers the first demonstrably effective way to improve our ability to predict the future—whether in business, finance, politics, international affairs, or daily life—and is destined to become a modern classic."

So let's take stock of what feminists and the SocJus movement in general tend to do from that bolded list:

• Gather evidence from a variety of sources: no
• Think probabilistically: no
• Work in teams: yes, although they are highly dysfunctional
• Keep score: no
• Be willing to admit error or change course: hell no

They get half credit for the third criterion (and I'm being generous here) and zero for the others, for a total of 10/100. Final grade: F.

Why is it OK for these people to try to fill my head with shit?

Why are you of the opinion that feminists do all these things so badly?

[Perkwunos]

Why are you of the opinion that feminists do all these things so badly?

Let's go through these points one by one:

• Gathering evidence from a variety of sources: "I read HuffPo and Raw Story and Buzzfeed!" does not count towards this goal
• Thinking probabilistically: "believe the victim" and other black-and-white thinking precludes doing this; you had better not ever dare question the veracity of a rape allegation, even if it turns out false later
• Working in teams: they are good at doing this, but circlequeefing and groupthink doesn't improve judgment; indeed, it worsens it
• Keeping score is essentially an aspect of...
• ...being willing to admit error or change course: which they don't do; if they have been demonstrated wrong they will scream and cry about gaslighting and mansplaining and other figments of their imagination that keep them utterly blinkered

Feminists and other people in SocJus tend to be very proud of their intellects and how well informed they are. And yet Tetlock's research has never supported the notion that ideologues of any kind are good judges of what is true or false, whether they're from the left or right. Don't you think all their braggadocio would have drawn some attention to their unusual ability if they actually had it?

[Perkwunos]

Also, a theme that runs throughout Tetlock's work is Isaiah Berlin's analogy of the hedgehog and the fox. A hedgehog is someone who views the world through a single overarching idea and a fox is someone who views the world through many different ideas. Tetlock has found that those who analyze the world like a "fox" are better forecasters than those who analyze the world like a "hedgehog".

The view that critical theory takes of seeing the entire world through the prism of power struggles and privilege, which is the scholarly underpinning of SocJus thought today, is hedgehog thinking taken to a pathological extreme.

[Pants-of-dog]

Let's go through these points one by one:

[list]
[*]Gathering evidence from a variety of sources: "I read HuffPo and Raw Story and Buzzfeed!" does not count towards this goal

Some feminists do this. Some do not. It is illogical to base your opinion of all feminists on the few that only look at a few sources.

[*]Thinking probabilistically: "believe the victim" and other black-and-white thinking precludes doing this; you had better not ever dare question the veracity of a rape allegation, even if it turns out false later

Doubting the victim has measurable effects in terms of silencing the survivors of rape. This then has other measurable effects, such as rape survivors blaming themselves, and rapists being able to operate with impunity.

It does not see, logical to dismiss this just to adhere dogmatically to some idea of "innocent until proven guilty" as a moral (rather than a legalistic) standard.

[*]Working in teams: they are good at doing this, but circlequeefing and groupthink doesn't improve judgment; indeed, it worsens it

Dismissing all collective action by feminists as "circlequeefing and group think is not only devoid of logic or evidence, but is also a good example of prejudice.

[*]Keeping score is essentially an aspect of...
[*]...being willing to admit error or change course: which they don't do; if they have been demonstrated wrong they will scream and cry about gaslighting and mansplaining and other figments of their imagination that keep them utterly blinkered

So gaslighting and mansplaining are entirely imaginary? I see. So, when men carefully explain to women how women are oppressed (or not) by sexism, that is not mansplaining. It is something else because men actually know far more about sexism against women than women do.

Sure.

Feminists and other people in SocJus tend to be very proud of their intellects and how well informed they are. And yet Tetlock's research has never supported the notion that ideologues of any kind are good judges of what is true or false, whether they're from the left or right. Don't you think all their braggadocio would have drawn some attention to their unusual ability if they actually had it?

I have no idea why you assume that only feminists and SJWs are affected by the faults identified by Tetlock.

[Perkwunos]

Some feminists do this. Some do not. It is illogical to base your opinion of all feminists on the few that only look at a few sources.

"The few".

Doubting the victim has measurable effects in terms of silencing the survivors of rape. This then has other measurable effects, such as rape survivors blaming themselves, and rapists being able to operate with impunity.

Irrelevant. I want evidence or I want the person to shut the hell up.

It does not see, logical

Still haven't defined "logic".

Dismissing all collective action by feminists as "circlequeefing and group think is not only devoid of logic or evidence, but is also a good example of prejudice.

It's not prejudice. Feminists and SocJus in general, and indeed the left more generally, are full of groupthink. Human society is full of groupthink.

So, when men carefully explain to women how women are oppressed (or not) by sexism, that is not mansplaining. It is something else because men actually know far more about sexism against women than women do.

In practice "mansplaining" is "a man saying something I don't like".

I have no idea why you assume that only feminists and SJWs are affected by the faults identified by Tetlock.

They're not. The world is full of people who are filled near to bursting with shit and just don't know or care. What I'm saying is that feminists and other elements of SocJus think they're light-years ahead of knuckle-draggers who get all their news from Fox and WND and Newsbusters and they're not. They're all about equally benighted, and they're going to stay that way until they adopt an unadulterated, rigorously empirical way of thinking about the world.

Again, and this really bears repeating: there is absolutely no evidence that left-wing ideologues are any better at forecasting and understanding facts about the world we live in than their right-wing counterparts. The only way to get yourself off the hook for this charge is not to piss and moan about how mean and unjust it is to see things empirically but instead just to suck it up and start doing it. Or continue to live in this bubble where you choose your beliefs according to what you think is moral. But don't expect me not to point it out.