Periodic Table of Swearing

Guest · #31681

Er, Uh, WELCH. lmao. Fucking autocorrect!

Guessed · #31682

Yeah, as someone said before her public speaking style is really awful. If she came to be a prominent figure within the atheist community via popularity on a message board and through youtube videos criticising those sitting duck targets, then I'm not surprised one bit that she is as awful as she is in terms of style and substance.

After you take aim at the easy targets - homeopathy, anti-vaxers, pseudoscience - you need to be able to contribute more. Whilst a certain take on those issues may be original, criticism of them is not original within the skeptical community at all, thus those easy targets aren't going to lead to a prolonged career if your role is to be a "skeptical" public speaker. In branching out into other territory though, you have to ensure that you know what you are talking about, or are critiquing something accurately. This is why it helps to have further education in the sciences, as fundamental aspects of being awarded a degree include, obviously, extensive knowledge of the area but also the ability to critically review papers within the field when writing an article, lab report or essay. It seems to me that anyone with these skills would not have come up with such a flawed presentation, as Watson did. That is why I think she should either stop talking about things she doesn't know, or learn to do it properly. That is why I read Pharyngula when it used to be about the science, because Myers is actually a biologist and knows what he is talking about; also why I like Abbie's blog.

Maybe she just needs to go to church every now and then, my dad is a minister and he has a killer public speaking style. ;)

#31683

Tony Parsehole wrote:
I knew, KNEW you would mention Frank!
I would love to have seen him before he passed away. You're a lucky bugger. By "had a fit" do you mean the singer was laughing or getting pissed off?

He was absolutely fuming!
That's why it was so funny!
He was trying to do all these deep emotional songs (to be honest he had a great voice) but ended up doing a virtual duet with Frank Sidebottom!

[youtube]J82GaTicN2g[/youtube]

#31684

you dont need to have further education in the sciences - you need to know how to practice skepticism.
Watching a few Peter Hadfield (potholer54) videos would help her no end

#31685

mikelf wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:She could even be one of the thousands of quacks who hang up a shingle with "Therapist - Feminist Psycho-Analysis" without needing any actual degree in Psychology or Psychiatry. She seems like one of those people who would really like to be thought of as advisers to others, but doesn't realize how fucking stupid others find her.
Actually, she does have a degree in Psychology.

Whew, she's not allowed to counsel!!! I'll bet she'd have made a great encourager of that 'therapist'-discovered Satanic pedo abuse repressed memory bullshit back in the 80s and 90s.

#31686

mutleyeng wrote:Any respect for James Croft is lost from me (doubt he cares, but just sayin)
Pure apologetics
More responsibility on him for lording her amazing knowledge and research - but no he blames the reader for listening to people like him that people like her are worth listening to in the first place (go with me on this)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofth ... e-reading/

What a dink. In his gushing review earlier, he was chortling over the shenanigans of researchers, not the pop presentations of their work in the media. And apparently, it makes no difference to him that the two bits he chose to highlight have been shown to be wrong. He had a laugh, he thinks she's adorable, so whatever.

#31687

Tony Parsehole wrote:I'm not buying this "it was meant as stand-up comedy!" spin.
Watson was speaking at a fucking sceptic convention about evo-psych not doing a gig on Live At The Apollo. No matter how humorous the tone was it was meant as a serious speech.

Perhaps she would be better off if she was simply billed as a comedian. Truthiness in advertising and all.

#31688

mutleyeng wrote:you dont need to have further education in the sciences - you need to know how to practice skepticism.
Watching a few Peter Hadfield (potholer54) videos would help her no end

I'm not sure that this is always the case.
Some skeptic topics don't require high level education (bigfoot, ufo's etc) but there are plenty of other subjects where the science is complicated.
For example global climate change or various medical questions like Abbies take on the XMRV issue.
Yes, as a skeptic you can join in but it takes a real expert knowledge to understand all the issues and counter the objections from the science deniers.

#31689

Dick Strawkins wrote:
mutleyeng wrote:you dont need to have further education in the sciences - you need to know how to practice skepticism.
Watching a few Peter Hadfield (potholer54) videos would help her no end
I'm not sure that this is always the case.
Some skeptic topics don't require high level education (bigfoot, ufo's etc) but there are plenty of other subjects where the science is complicated.
For example global climate change or various medical questions like Abbies take on the XMRV issue.
Yes, as a skeptic you can join in but it takes a real expert knowledge to understand all the issues and counter the objections from the science deniers.

well, the very best explanations I've seen behind the science of climate change were from Potholer54. He used pure skepticism of tracking cited sources and reading the papers

#31690

Tony Parsehole wrote:I'm not buying this "it was meant as stand-up comedy!" spin.
Watson was speaking at a fucking sceptic convention about evo-psych not doing a gig on Live At The Apollo. No matter how humorous the tone was it was meant as a serious speech.

Just another in a soon to be long list of mind-breaking mental gymnastics to defend Becky.
So far we have:

1) she was only criticising the pop aspect of evo-psych in tabloid media. (Steffuny Zwan)
2) All evo-psch is bollocks even though some isn't (Myers)
3) Yes it completely missed the point but I liked it and it made me feel nice so lay off (James Croft)
4) It was a stand up routine FFS!!!! Stop criticising her comedy!!! (Some arsehole commentator on FTB)

So now comedy is their excuse? Funny how selective THAT one is.

#31691

You know, those separatist types are so nonviolent, and peaceful, and loving, how could ANY person think otherwise of them.

Posted for your amusement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/0006-01.png

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/0006-02.png

#31692

Gumby wrote:Yes, it looks like Rebecca had time to read the shitstorm of criticism and revamp her presentation. It would be great if someone videoed her NZ talk for comparison. But the real questions are, did she do it to make a better speech or did she do it to protect her BeckyBrand? Did she learn anything from her complete and utter embarrassment? Somehow, I doubt it.

This shit really annoys me, because as a science layman, I really appreciate when knowledgeable people give talks on interesting scientific subjects in a casual yet informative fashion that I can understand and learn from. Watson has the seed of that ability in her. She could do it, if she tried a lot harder. But instead of choosing to develop that into a real talent for informative and entertaining communication, she's taken the lazy way out. She's chosen instead to become a superficial and clumsy scientific/skeptic stand-up comedian more interested in promoting her personal brand of giggly, hung-over, and shallow glibness than imparting anything of value.

I agree. She's comfortable on stage, enjoys talking, and people like her. She's always in trouble because she's lazy, insists on punching above her weight, and thinks anyone who has a problem with her snarky diva persona is a woman-hating troglodyte. Her career would be a lot smoother if she'd just quit being a shithead. But I don't think that's gonna happen.

#31693

acathode wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:These fuckers are 'true believers' in killing their enemies every bit as much as the 'true believers' of religion going jihad all over the place. Solanas who wrote SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men - a book recommending to rid the world of men) actually did try to kill Andy Wharhol, seeing him as an evil man (he had to be doing the Patriarchy's dirty work, since he turned down some script she was hoping to sell him).
I gotta ask this question, since the way feminists deal with Solanas and SCUM was one of the things that really made me go "WTF?!" when I started looking closer at feminism. You used to be a pretty hardcore feminist if I remember it correctly from your earlier posts, right?

How did/does feminists "inside the movement" actually view Solanas? Officially, the most common way I've seen them defend their praise of SCUM whenever they get called out on it, is to call it ironic or a satire, but considering that Solanas was likely suffering from some severe mental disorders and tried to murder men she disliked, I'm having a seriously hard time buying that it's just supposed to be a joke. Sorry for going Godwin, but it kinda seems about as ridicilous as if a neo nazi tried explaining "Mein Kampf" by "Oh Hitler were just joking about the Jews."...

Especially when prized Swedish feminist author Sara Stridsberg write stuff like "We can read it literally. We should read it literally. That women punch back is completely logical" in the foreword for the recently published Swedish translation of SCUM .

The separatists idolize her, although some ordinary radfems do too. I had a copy of her book back in the 80s, but I lost it when I lent it out and forgot about it. I remember discussing with fellow separatists just how one could bring about and maintain such a male-free society. Some idolize her but lie about it, saying oh never mind her, she was just an extremist.

And I suppose some not very radical feminists really do realize that her ideas were murderous and horrible and that she was very sick mentally.

Swedish radfems have been having quite the Solanas love fest lately, promoting her in everything from school projects to your quote above.

#31694

[quote="Scented Nectar"]You know, those separatist types are so nonviolent, and peaceful, and loving, how could ANY person think otherwise of them.

Posted for your amusement:

*snipped the ramblings of a psycho*

What a fucking nutcase.

#31695

mutleyeng wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
mutleyeng wrote:you dont need to have further education in the sciences - you need to know how to practice skepticism.
Watching a few Peter Hadfield (potholer54) videos would help her no end
I'm not sure that this is always the case.
Some skeptic topics don't require high level education (bigfoot, ufo's etc) but there are plenty of other subjects where the science is complicated.
For example global climate change or various medical questions like Abbies take on the XMRV issue.
Yes, as a skeptic you can join in but it takes a real expert knowledge to understand all the issues and counter the objections from the science deniers.
well, the very best explanations I've seen behind the science of climate change were from Potholer54. He used pure skepticism of tracking cited sources and reading the papers

When it is not my subject, and the answer is not clear cut, I usually go with the consensus opinion of scientific experts rather than any single individuals viewpoint, no matter how well they may appear to argue the point.
I haven't watched Potholer54's videos and he may well be arguing in a good way but some climate change deniers are pretty good at appearing to be skeptical too (remember, they use the term 'skeptics' for themselves).
I have to admit that it is possible that I could be fooled by such a presentation (when I am not expert enough to figure out the truth behind the results presented). It is easier, and safer, therefore, to choose to go with consenus science in such topics. It's not the case with all sciences for me - I'm fine with going to the source papers for virtually any issue in biology - because I have the training and background to understand whether the results are presented in a truthful way and back up the point being asserted.

Guessed · #31696

mutleyeng wrote:you dont need to have further education in the sciences - you need to know how to practice skepticism.
Watching a few Peter Hadfield (potholer54) videos would help her no end

Sorry, yeah, it isn't essential to have further education in the sciences but I do believe that the critical review skills they teach (particularly within a certain field) can enable a speaker to more accurately assess claims and does lend credence to their ability to speak with some authority on the subject. A skeptical mindset towards evaluating evidence is arguably more important and I don't think that a lack of tertiary education in a certain area should preclude someone from speaking on certain issues, however. If Watson doesn't have those critical assessment skills (which is my opinion after viewing that talk) and is rather just playing the "communicator" card, she could have at least gone down the journalistic route and asked for "expert" opinion on the issues she was critiquing, rather than just lazily dismissing so much of the field. That would have been more in the spirit of open inquiry, though wouldn't do much for her argument I imagine, so who cares right...

#31697

@Scented Nectar.

Solanas was a nutcase and SCUM is a vile piece of trash written by a mentally disturbed individual and was/is meant to be taken seriously. Any school "promoting" her needs closing down IMO.

Why are we so willing as a society to excuse some evil cunts, even celebrate them, but then get so faux outraged with others?*

*For instance Genghis Khan was the most successful murderer and rapist in history and he gets his own statue in London but Fred West kills and rapes ten women and they knock his house down! It's one law for genocidal Mongolian warlords and another for illiterate, Gloucstershire sex-maniacs.

#31698

Scented Nectar wrote:You know, those separatist types are so nonviolent, and peaceful, and loving, how could ANY person think otherwise of them.

Posted for your amusement:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/0006-01.png

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/0006-02.png

"maak ons slachten u niet"

is dutch for:

"Don't make us kill you."

SYG · #31699

http://i.imgur.com/GHUVB.png

Just leaving this here. BTW, sorry I forgot to identify as SYG in the handful of times I posted as guest since my 'incident'.

#31700

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:You know, those separatist types are so nonviolent, and peaceful, and loving, how could ANY person think otherwise of them.

Posted for your amusement:

*snipped the ramblings of a psycho*

What a fucking nutcase.

Par for the course. Now who could turn down a new world order run by these folks? :?

#31701

http://i.imgur.com/7ItNi.jpg

#31702

Dick Strawkins wrote: When it is not my subject, and the answer is not clear cut, I usually go with the consensus opinion of scientific experts rather than any single individuals viewpoint, no matter how well they may appear to argue the point.
I haven't watched Potholer54's videos and he may well be arguing in a good way but some climate change deniers are pretty good at appearing to be skeptical too (remember, they use the term 'skeptics' for themselves).
I have to admit that it is possible that I could be fooled by such a presentation (when I am not expert enough to figure out the truth behind the results presented). It is easier, and safer, therefore, to choose to go with consenus science in such topics. It's not the case with all sciences for me - I'm fine with going to the source papers for virtually any issue in biology - because I have the training and background to understand whether the results are presented in a truthful way and back up the point being asserted.

Dick, its not about how well one person argues...thats everything that potholer54 argues against. He is about how to apply skepticism by listening to what is said, actually reading the referenced material.
Seriously - watch a couple of his videos where he demolishes Lord Monckton's denialism better than any single climatologist ever managed.
heres an example - worth watching if you never seen him in action

#31703

Tony Parsehole wrote:@Scented Nectar.

Solanas was a nutcase and SCUM is a vile piece of trash written by a mentally disturbed individual and was/is meant to be taken seriously. Any school "promoting" her needs closing down IMO.

I think you can find some videos on it a number of months ago on johntheother's youtube channel. I think SCUM was chosen by some women as their (art? film?) project. I can't remember for sure whether this was for a school project. I might have assumed that part. May have been some sort of gallery showing project.

Anyways, they filmed a bunch of young women sneaking up on an innocent man reading the paper, and they blow his head off with a gun. Then they dance for joy. Its connection to SCUM was either in the title or credits. I can't remember.

#31704

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/7ItNi.jpg

Great takedown by Drescher!

#31705

Dick Strawkins wrote:"maak ons slachten u niet"

is dutch for:

"Don't make us kill you."

Such nice people! They almost make the baboons seem tame in comparison. :lol:

#31706

Interesting development - Watson and her sycophants are now antagonising some of their early supporters with their attempts to inject their ideology into science.
Initially, Dresher had joined the elevator whine circus and rather gullibly so.

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/07/ ... a-new-era/

#31707

mikelf wrote: Actually, she does have a degree in Psychology.

That is certainly better than nothing but an undergraduate degree twenty years ago with no follow-up (getting a post graduate qualification, working in the same field as your degree, etc) won't give you any sort of current expertise in a complicated field like psychology.
I'm nearly the same age as Svan and my undergraduate degree was in microbiology, and even though I've worked in medical science ever since, I haven't worked directly in microbiology. I would never consider myself an expert in microbiology but I would probably be able to find an expert opinion from the published literature far quicker than a lay person.

#31708

decius wrote:Interesting development - Watson and her sycophants are now antagonising some of their early supporters with their attempts to inject their ideology into science.
Initially, Dresher had joined the elevator whine circus and rather gullibly so.

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/07/ ... a-new-era/

Have you read the bible? If you only thought about these things deeply you could find Jesus too. I am doing you a favour by trying to save your soul.

#31709

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/7ItNi.jpg

The Steffalump's second comment could have come straight from the mouth of a Tea Partier...

#31710

Lsuoma wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/7ItNi.jpg
The Steffalump's second comment could have come straight from the mouth of a Tea Partier...

At this point a Tea Partier might look to be more intelligent.

#31711

Skep tickle wrote:RW in reply #1 at SZ's "Science Denialism..." said "I saw Clintâ€™s post but as Iâ€™m traveling, I have no time to write anything up, so Iâ€™m very glad that youâ€™ve done a great job of it. Iâ€™m actually giving this talk again tomorrow and Iâ€™m quite thankful to people who have given me notes and corrections. I even got a few good ones from Clint!"

It seems possible that one of the contributing factors to her having "no time to write anything up" is that she was busy saying "SHIT SHIT FUCK FUCK" and having a couple of drinks and frantically trying to revamp the talk, considering all the while whether she could get away with a bait-and-switch where she didn't say a word about Evo Psych or Edward Clint and talked instead about the awful things people have said to her online over the past 1+ years.

You didnt quote all of it:

Thanks Stephanie. I saw Clintâ€™s post but as Iâ€™m traveling, I have no time to write anything up, so Iâ€™m very glad that youâ€™ve done a great job of it. Iâ€™m actually giving this talk again tomorrow and Iâ€™m quite thankful to people who have given me notes and corrections. I even got a few good ones from Clint! Heâ€™s absolutely right that I misspoke in regards to Krugerâ€™s affiliation (itâ€™s U of Michigan, not Chicago, that should be embarrassed) and in regards to the favorite color study being given to Chinese people in the UK, not in China. Also, the â€œWhy People Have Sexâ€ study was not all white middle class women â€“ it was only about ~60% white (and ~20% Asian.) I think Iâ€™ll note instead that the study involved 96% 18-22 year olds, all of whom were psychology students at University of Texas Austin, and among the women 27% of whom had never had sexual intercourse. More accurate and also more ridiculous.

There are other bits and pieces Clint got wrong but at a glance I think youâ€™ve covered the bulk of the problems here.

What an arrogant pig fucker.

She has zero, ZERO education/work/research experience on this topic. ZERO. When you combine that with Svans knowledge about evopsych, we are still at ZERO.

But those two, yes they easily correct Clint, who has education/work/research experience. He got some 'bits and pieces' wrong, good thing those tard twins IDed them.

Reminds me of allllllll the times I have been lectured by Mommy Warriors and preachers and CFS freaks about how I 'just dont understand immunology/evolution/virology'.

Fuck you, Watson, seriously.

"... treating people like equals when they most clearly arent is called what kids?"
Intellectual communism.

#31712

Lsuoma wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/7ItNi.jpg
The Steffalump's second comment could have come straight from the mouth of a Tea Partier...

It's in the same league as "Pah! Well, you can prove anything with FACTS"

#31713

X is so fucking meta you have to be travelling at the Speed of Zvan to get it. You shortbus retards will never catch up.

There, I'll never have to open a Zvan link again.

#31714

http://i.imgur.com/DoLWb.jpg

What does Svan mean there?
That she should be allowed to try to land a plane? :shock:

#31715

Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/DoLWb.jpg

What does Svan mean there?
That she should be allowed to try to land a plane? :shock:

Zvan's comment makes her anti-sanity.

#31716

Tony Parsehole wrote:Solidarity for TedDahlberg
*snip image*

Fine, I'll play:

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/1 ... ue-aA2.jpg

#31717

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/DoLWb.jpg

What does Svan mean there?
That she should be allowed to try to land a plane? :shock:
Zvan's comment makes her anti-sanity.

http://reapsowradio.com/graphics/twitte ... 6-55-7.png

#31718

Ape+lust wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Indeed. I always thought the equivalent was "gloating." By the way, got it from this video of all things. Who knew?
So "kiss" means "pee," which I guess would make "kiss my ass" a pervy come-on in Sweden. That's pretty useful info for the conscientious traveller :D

Not to mention Brad Pittâ€¦

#31719

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Solidarity for TedDahlberg
*snip image*
Fine, I'll play:

*snippety*

Aw, you guysâ€¦ I mean cunts.

Guest · #31720

There's too many relevant parts to excerpt them all, so I'll just lay this here: http://www.spiked-online.com/site/revie ... cle/13130/

#31721

I'm just loving the insvanity on display. Even funnier is Oloon's pitiful attempts to defend Queen Bee.

The Baboon agenda is again exposed as anti-science, anti-skepticism, and based on political agendas and emotion. We at the Slyme Pit had them clocked right from the beginning of the schism. WE are on the right side of history.

#31722

Dilurk wrote:
decius wrote:Interesting development - Watson and her sycophants are now antagonising some of their early supporters with their attempts to inject their ideology into science.
Initially, Dresher had joined the elevator whine circus and rather gullibly so.

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/07/ ... a-new-era/
Have you read the bible? If you only thought about these things deeply you could find Jesus too. I am doing you a favour by trying to save your soul.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting.

#31723

PZ throws his toys out of the pram...

http://i.imgur.com/oF4jI.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#31724

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Solidarity for TedDahlberg
*snip image*
Fine, I'll play:

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/1 ... ue-aA2.jpg

I wanna play too

Can I hug you?
http://www.feature-fix.com/storage/face ... 0679390631
No is NOT and acceptable answer

#31725

I notice on PZ's thread that "Winterwind" is there defending Rebecca.

S/h/it was the one humiliated after her argument that RD.net is infested with racists. S/h/it used some examples of comments, and then somebody posted equivalent comments from Pharyngula. S/h/it then went a bit quiet and sheepishly tried to explain it was an example of "illustrating" racism in the wider atheist/skeptic community.

Of course, we all know why Winterwind chose Dawkins - s/h/it is friends with Watson, who, funnilly enough, tweeted s/h/it's article as soon as it was posted.

I bet s/h/it is still suffering major butthurt from the incident.

#31726

decius wrote:
Dilurk wrote:
decius wrote:Interesting development - Watson and her sycophants are now antagonising some of their early supporters with their attempts to inject their ideology into science.
Initially, Dresher had joined the elevator whine circus and rather gullibly so.

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/07/ ... a-new-era/
Have you read the bible? If you only thought about these things deeply you could find Jesus too. I am doing you a favour by trying to save your soul.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting.

Hey if you are ever up this way we could go for coffee or something.

#31727

Having some fun with Laurel & Hardy:

[youtube]XoMtS72Kke0[/youtube]

#31728

http://i.imgur.com/g6BAZ.jpg

One of PZ's minions is alerting the Baboon King that Justin Griffith will have to be sent another stern email putting him in his place...

#31729

CommanderTuvok wrote:PZ throws his toys out of the pram...

http://i.imgur.com/oF4jI.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think PZ doesn't like us....I wonder what we did to piss him off. That's a pretty big font he must not be foolin'

#31730

Yes, large font, all caps, in colors-- Yes that is a sign the poster has a firm grasp on sanity. HAAAAA!

#31731

Reap wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote:PZ throws his toys out of the pram...

http://i.imgur.com/oF4jI.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I think PZ doesn't like us....I wonder what we did to piss him off. That's a pretty big font he must not be foolin'

[youtube]IkdJGd8W4YE[/youtube]

#31732

http://i.imgur.com/UiRsZ.jpg

#31733

CommanderTuvok wrote:PZ throws his toys out of the pram...

http://i.imgur.com/oF4jI.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This cap needs to be everywhere on the web. Fine skepticism and gallant aproach to criticism he has, this clown.

#31734

Hmm, using all caps and colored text, wasn't that what they used to show evidence of Thunderf00t being a "bad writer"?

#31735

mutleyeng wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote: Barbara Drescher is on fire in the comments.

I think I'm in love! :romance-heartsthree:

This is EXACTLY the issue.
Rebecca Watson being asked to give a keynote presentation about a complicated scientific research topic is a symptom of the problem that faces the skepticism movement.
Croft's argument seemed to be that it was all OK because Rebecca is a comedian! :shock:
I think she has been watching Watson for some time

she is great - Reap, get that woman on your podcast.

Indeed. This is sort of recent (Aug 2012)
http://i.imgur.com/JZQQU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/A9aEX.jpg

Now I myself didn't have a problem with boobquake per se...but Jen didn't seem to realize that jokes would come from such an event. Duh...it has BOOBS in the title.

Maybe not the place (fb) to discuss stuff like this...but this is not a one -off event but part of a long continuum.
I do respect Barbara Drescher's opinion about almost anything above Jen's, though.

#31736

CommanderTuvok wrote:PZ throws his toys out of the pram...

http://i.imgur.com/oF4jI.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was wondering yesterday how long it would take Myers to ban Justin.

#31737

BTW, does anybody know what Steven "logical fallacy" Novella thinks of Rebecca's speech?

C'mon Steven. Drop drinking the Kool-Aid and call Rebecca out for once.

#31738

PZ MYERS CAN FUCK OFF EVEN MORE!!!

Not funny, we're limited to 120 fonts...

#31739

Fuck me, Croft is so digging that hole:

his reply to me:

I actually make the same point in my post: that she seems to vacillate between criticizing one specific thing and something much broader, and should be clearer. Does a lack of clarity and occasional errors make one a science denialist, though? I do not think so.

my response:

James, it's more than a "Lack of Clarity". Even you assume she's talking about EV as a whole. Here, from your writeup:

Her target today: the dodgy nature of much evolutionary science. Apparently, it has become ever-more commonplace for marketers to purchase scientific â€œcredibilityâ€ for their products by offering a sum of money to PhDs with a more or less relevant qualification to come up with â€œscienceâ€ which supports the results the marketers have decided they want in advance. That there are scientists unscrupulous enough to take such a deal is atrocious, and brings the entire scientific practice into disrepute â€“ but Watson also made it very funny, which is her particular genius.
Let me repeat the lead sentence from *your* post about the session:

Her target today: the dodgy nature of much evolutionary science.
You're not talking about how the media represents Pop EP there, nor are you even talking about Pop EP. You represented her talk as a critique of EP. Yet now you're saying it wasn't? Maybe you should go back and read your own words? Were you not actually there, or were maybe it was that your own first impression of the talk was that she was critiquing EP as a field.

Following that you said:

Watson also shone an unflattering light on evolutionary psychology, which is a discipline with a lot of problems. Watsonâ€™s recounting of VS Ramachandranâ€™s evolutionary psychology article â€œWhy Do Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?â€ â€“ a satire which he was able to get published â€“ highlighted some of these problems neatly and with hilarity: the people around me almost fell off their chairs laughing! However, Iâ€™m not sure her criticism was entirely fair here: evolutionary psychology comes in many forms, not all of which are as simplistic as the examples she was criticizing tonight.
Based on her statements, you assumed that Ramachandranâ€™s satire was published in a legitimate EP journal. *You* assumed that. it's in your words. You manage to point out that her criticicsm *may* be unfair, but you still completely go along with her thesis that EP is junk science, look, they published satire, hur-hur. At no point, at NO point in your writeup do you talk about how she was pointing out the misrepresentation of EP by the media, or the damage of POP EP. You are right along with her on the "EP is crap" bus.

It's only when people with actual expertise in the field point out that she was wrong all over the place that you're trying to retcon things to make her, (and by association your writeup) look better.

It's not just you who assumed her talk was about EP.:

For what it is worth I think Evolutionary Psychology ranks up there with homeopathy and astrology as Pseudo-Scientific bullshit.

Come on man, there's a corner, and your ass is jammed into it. She wasn't talking about how the media misrepresents EP, she was talking about how EP is crap, and her sources show some of the laziest research on the planet. It was a bad talk, hopefully one that will never be repeated. But even your writeup shows the "No, no, you don't unnerstan', she was talkin' 'bout Pop EP and how the media is misrepresentin'" stance you're now taking isn't what most people took away from her talk.

You can keep digging, or you can stop, admit the reality of the evidence and move on.

#31740

CommanderTuvok wrote:PZ throws his toys out of the pram...

http://i.imgur.com/oF4jI.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

HAHAHA! Brilliant! Well done Justin for making PZ wheel out the size 48 font.

Incidentally what was it that PZ said about TF00t's blogging style? Too many capitals?