When skeptics turn dickish (I'm gonna catch hell for this one)

I'm with Dawkins on the dickishness discussion. There's a time and a place for being dickish - and if you're in a forum or debate setting with an audience (a situation effectively making it impossible for either debater to review his or her stances), the rhetoric is for the audience. Dickishness is called for in this situation; first you invalidate the opponents stances then drive the point home with some dickish humour, something that communicates with the audience.

If you're having a one-on-one with someone, then you've got to be respectful and honest with them and their beliefs.

So yea, there's a time and a place for it.

*grabs popcorn*

Well, this should be interesting.

Good topic. When it comes to live debates, where there may be press and video recordings, behavior is very important -- it's part of the message received by the audience. That's far more important than the temporary thrill of publicly humiliating a creationist.

Further, one should know ahead of time who the debate opponent is, and if it would be a rollicking good occasion for dickishness, then the event should probably be avoided.

Yeah, that bit bothered me when I heard it too. I'm thinking there's a good quote and then they start being, well... dickish about it.

It gets even worse though. Googling reveals that the quote actually came from the first-person character in a short story/long moral parable that Yudkowsky wrote, which argued for science over some of the sillier forms of solipsistic philosophy.

Note: the story is actually quite good, and I giggled in all the appropriate places.

Joel, thanks for the link. That essay really was hilarious.

About the SGU episode, has there been any word from Phil or the show noting their error in understanding?

Oooo shoes! Oh, I'm sorry got distracted.....

I guess I'm going to agree with Mike who agreed with Dawkins who agreed with Jefferson. Sometimes you need to be a dick. Dickishness has it's place.

My favorite quote in support of dickishness comes from Jefferson himself:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. "

What a total dick!

The problem here isn't being dickish. The problem here is that they were wrong.

Incidentally, while Yudkowsky does have some ideas that are likely to be incorrect, he writes very well and does a good job of encouraging critical thinking. It is also clear that of the Singularity proponents, he's the most reasonable. He's also a surprisingly good fiction writer and has been busy writing "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" a Harry Potter fanfic in which the premise is that Harry grew up around scientists and then tries to apply the scientific method to magic when he goes to Hogwarts. It is a bit preachy at points but overall is well done- http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/

Joshua Zelinsky said: The problem here isn't being dickish. The problem here is that they were wrong.

Thanks for the defense! Remember that you don't need to be smart to be skeptical of things that all your friends are skeptical about. Good rationality implies skepticism about many things, but most people of all sorts are bad rationalists, and most skeptics are not exceptions.

Well, I was about to give him a second chance after seeing his quote dragged through the mud, but the fact that he writes Harry Potter fanfics has sealed the deal for me! :b

Skepticism can be a fine thing, but as an end in itself it leaves something to be desired. It's a useful tool, but like all tools it can be misused, and in the limit it can simply degenerate into sniping and negativism.

One of the things about reading Hume is his realization that serious skepticism reserves some skepticism for itself.

All - we were not wrong about the quote. Jay chose the quote because it reflects our skeptical philosophy.

What happened was that Hoppe completely misinterpreted our ironic humor at the end. My joke was that, if your belief corresponds to reality, how do you know from that alone that true reality is shaping your beliefs vs your beliefs shaping what you think reality is - since you are essentially comparing your beliefs to your beliefs about reality (no one has access to the true answers at the back of the book). Get the irony? Even schizophrenics think their reality is evidence-based.

But of course I am not advocating solipsism, and that was Phil's joke. The answer is that we have to check our beliefs against objective evidence and other people as much as possible.

Further - we did not make fun of the guy's name. We made fun of Jay's inability to pronounce it - which is a running joke on the show.

MrG said: Skepticism can be a fine thing, but as an end in itself it leaves something to be desired. It's a useful tool, but like all tools it can be misused, and in the limit it can simply degenerate into sniping and negativism.

Steven Novella said: Get the irony?

OK, I've listened to that segment again in the light of Novella's explanation, and if I tilt my head just right and squint my eyes, I can see a faint glimmer of the irony he claims for it. But I gotta squint real hard to make the reality consistent with the explanation.

Anyone who isn't in on the in-jokes of the podcast is going to hear it as dickish.

Steven Novella said: What happened was that Hoppe completely misinterpreted our ironic humor at the end.

I agree that we often assume that our listeners listen to multiple episodes and basically get our philosophy and running jokes. We don't always pause to explain the background of our jokes. It's a delicate balance and I admit we don't always pull off our humor.

But we do expect that regular listeners understand that we are skeptical.

Honestly, I was shocked at your take. It seemed totally obvious to me that we were not belittleing the quote itself.

RBH said: OK, I've listened to that segment again in the light of Novella's explanation, and if I tilt my head just right and squint my eyes, I can see a faint glimmer of the irony he claims for it.

Or maybe I'm irony-deficient. [shrug] I can live with that, having done so for almost 70 years.

Gaebolga said: I think you'll find that most PT posters' irony meters have either been fried or are calibrated to deal with much larger scales of irony due to their proximity to massive amounts of highly refined CreoTard^TM-brand Stoopid (now with extra chunks!).

Jane, you ignorant slut, for some jokes context is everything.

Which is probably a good reason why one shouldn't put too much weight on dickishness either way. Hey, we're human. Miscommunications are frequent. Because of this, its stupid to ignore an argument just because you think the arguer is acting like a jerk. Maybe their choice of language has a point, and you just don't see it.

At the same time, it is also fairly stupid to act like a jerk in cases where it may increase miscommunication, because we've got enough problems with that already. Use invective to clarify your point. Treat it the way you do the rest of your language. Comedians don't just sling together a bunch of curse words and bang, get funny, and no one here is going to sling together a bunch of insults and bang, be convincing. Comedians wield profanity and insult effectively to make their point. So should we.

So, Steven, what you are saying is that you didn't think you and Phil were being dickish but Richard did?

One would almost think that this dickishness thing that Phil expounded on seems to be all relative. Which would make Phil's DBAD speech a waste of time, misleading and harmful to skepticism in general.

Steve, thanks for clarifying that.

@Novella- as a philosophical exercise most freshman learn that it is not possible to "prove" an objective reality. Pragmatism forces us to assume that reality is real. Having read Yodkowsky's entire story (the one from which you mined the quote) it seems highly unlikely he is advocating solipsism or that he himself is a solipsist.

So yes, you and Plait were wrong and being dicks for mocking a man over a position he does not hold. Good job.

Oh, and I'll note that judging by his comment above Yudkowsky apparently didn't get the joke either.

Dude - as I wrote above (apparently you did not take the time to read those comments or you did not understand them) we were not accusing him of solipsism. Have you even listened to the episode for yourself?

It's one thing to be humor impaired, or perhaps our humor was impaired, but I find the level of "dickishness" in these accusations rather ironic.

Frankly I think Plait is a hypocrite. Deny moon landings and he'll put a can of whoop-ass on you faster than you can "homeopathy works." And, the same goes for homeopathy woo lovers, too.

But the biggest dick-move is, in fact, the labeling others as dicks without bothering to actually prove the point. The whole "dick by innuendo" thing which is used to minimize others and is just an exercise in High School level character assassination.

Ultimately, I think the whole "gnu atheist/DBAD" stuff will fail as just another silly-ass exclusionary tactic by people who to be more important than they are and can't raise to prominence because their particular tactic of accomidationism is just as fail-sauce today as it has always been in the past. You cannot appease tyrants or "ask nicely" for your civil/legal rights. It takes a battle.

Whether the accommodationist wishes it to be true or not.

I think Moody, Plait and their apologist really need to read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Then look in the mirror. They are on the wrong side, just as the white liberal who told the black man to, for the sake of social peace, to wait for those equal rights 'until times are better.'

A time that hadn't come for a hundred years. And without the civil rights movement, may still have never come.

Steven Novella said: Dude - as I wrote above (apparently you did not take the time to read those comments or you did not understand them) we were not accusing him of solipsism. Have you even listened to the episode for yourself? It's one thing to be humor impaired, or perhaps our humor was impaired, but I find the level of "dickishness" in these accusations rather ironic.

Which would make Phil’s DBAD speech a waste of time,

*ding*

and, btw, this thread as well.

May I suggest this thread is an unproductive dead end and that measures might be in order to put it out of its misery?

This is frustrating. There's plenty to criticize in things Yudkowsky's actually said or written; mocking him for something he didn't actually say is a waste of time and makes it easier for others to disregard genuine criticisms.

MosesZD said:

Steven Novella said: Dude - as I wrote above (apparently you did not take the time to read those comments or you did not understand them) we were not accusing him of solipsism. Have you even listened to the episode for yourself? It's one thing to be humor impaired, or perhaps our humor was impaired, but I find the level of "dickishness" in these accusations rather ironic.

That may be so in this example. But the larger truth is that, even if the example is wrong, it still doesn't excuse Plait from his hypocritical dickish hypocrisy. He's a dick when he feels it's necessary, like moon landings or homeopathy or anti-vaxxers. That is indisputable and leaves him without room to make his hypocritical DBAD talk where he engages in innuendo character assassination against "gnu Athiests." It's like a scene from a "bad High School" movie.

Ichthyic said: Which would make Phil’s DBAD speech a waste of time, *ding* and, btw, this thread as well.

@ Novella- To answer your questions, yes and yes. I still think you have taken one quote out of context, and the estimable Dr Plait calling Yudkowsky a solipsist is incorrect. So you have quote mined, misrepresented, and mocked. Dr Plait engaging in that with you puts him in an uncomfortable position.

I understand you are feeling defensive here, so I will gladly overlook your criticism of my apparently meager reading comprehension.

Dude said:So you have quote mined, misrepresented, and mocked. Dr Plait engaging in that with you puts him in an uncomfortable position.

After listening to the segment again, I'll grant you that maybe you intended to just make fun of the intentional misrepresentation made. It doesn't come over that way to me though.

I will also say that if I had to pick a side in the DBAD (I hesitate to call it a debate) conversation I would be opposite Dr Plait's spot at the table. Maybe my own bias is not letting me see your attempted humor clearly.

I see the entire DBAD meme as little more than nonsense. Ridicule clearly has a place in public discourse with irrational people. So I'm a bit annoyed with the DBAD and accommodationist crowd.

Ichthyic said: Which would make Phil’s DBAD speech a waste of time, *ding* and, btw, this thread as well.

The Curmudgeon said: Good topic. When it comes to live debates, where there may be press and video recordings, behavior is very important -- it's part of the message received by the audience. That's far more important than the temporary thrill of publicly humiliating a creationist. Further, one should know ahead of time who the debate opponent is, and if it would be a rollicking good occasion for dickishness, then the event should probably be avoided.

Dude said: I will also say that if I had to pick a side in the DBAD (I hesitate to call it a debate) conversation I would be opposite Dr Plait's spot at the table.

Ridicule clearly has a place in public discourse with irrational people.

Kevin B said: The phrase "hoist on own petard" comes to mind.

It is excusable to misinterpret what was said on the show, and I will accept my share of the blame for being obscure in my humor (although I am still surprised by that).

But it is not excusable to try to tell me what I intended. I know exactly what I was thinking when I said it, and there is no way for anyone to disagree with my explanation without simultaneously calling me a liar.

Perhaps what some are missing here is that you don't treat a hard working skeptic that you may disagree with, or who may have made a mistake the same way you treat a creationist who campaigns against science. It reeks of skeptical one-upsmanship.

@eric- Because hypocrisy is ugly. If a person objects to the use of ridicule and then engages in it... That creates a credibility problem for them at the least.

@Novella- Ok, you are correct about no one being able to genuinely criticize your intent, especially after you have explained it. But you should also realize that your intent isn't going to count for much when you say things that other reasonable people will take differently than you intend. Ask Howard Cosell.

Dude - But I don't think this blog post was based upon a reasonable interpretation. Ryan got it exactly correct - there were multiple reasons to interpret it as we intended. If our comments caused confusion, that should have prompted an e-mail, not a scathing blog post dripping with sarcasm and condescension based upon a complete misinterpretation.

Which dovetails with my other point - sarcasm and ridicule should not be machine guns that you spray indiscriminately at every target, but rather a sniper attack at those who deserve it. Which is also why I do not think Phil is being hypocritical - I don't think he ever said that ridicule is always inappropriate.

Steven Novella said: Dude - But I don't think this blog post was based upon a reasonable interpretation. Ryan got it exactly correct - there were multiple reasons to interpret it as we intended. If our comments caused confusion, that should have prompted an e-mail, not a scathing blog post dripping with sarcasm and condescension based upon a complete misinterpretation.

Which dovetails with my other point - sarcasm and ridicule should not be machine guns that you spray indiscriminately at every target, but rather a sniper attack at those who deserve it. Which is also why I do not think Phil is being hypocritical - I don't think he ever said that ridicule is always inappropriate.

Richard - my policy is to distinguish between those who generally mean well are are skeptical and those who generally do not mean well and are frauds, cranks, or have an anti-scientific agenda. My response is not based solely on what I think they said, but also on their track record. But that's me.

I actually wrote about this in detail here:http://skepticblog.org/2009/10/05/skeptic-on-skeptic/

That should serve as my final response on the topic.

RBH said: sarcasm and ridicule should not be machine guns that you spray indiscriminately at every target, but rather a sniper attack at those who deserve it.

Apologismos! I did not listen to the original, only read the blog post after Google sent me here. Please consider the comment withdrawn; if the issue is in contention I shalln't offer any force one way or the other.

eric- you said, "Too many people seem to use ridicule and profanity as a substitute for good argument rather than a means of emphasizing an argument that is already good. They subconsciously treat these techniques as a form of magic."

To bring this around to the larger topic again, with regard to the alleged persons the DBAD talk was aimed at, can you name one prominent or relevant member of the skeptical/science community who has ever done what you describe? I don't think that mythical beast exists...

Steven Novella said: Dude - But I don't think this blog post was based upon a reasonable interpretation. Ryan got it exactly correct - there were multiple reasons to interpret it as we intended. If our comments caused confusion, that should have prompted an e-mail, not a scathing blog post dripping with sarcasm and condescension based upon a complete misinterpretation. Which dovetails with my other point - sarcasm and ridicule should not be machine guns that you spray indiscriminately at every target, but rather a sniper attack at those who deserve it. Which is also why I do not think Phil is being hypocritical - I don't think he ever said that ridicule is always inappropriate.

And that looks like a good note on which to close the thread.