tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post23623292747673314..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Feminist Science CriticismJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-22802305409380155142012-12-06T20:15:20.028-06:002012-12-06T20:15:20.028-06:00It's tricky bringing up credentials--very hard...It's tricky bringing up credentials--very hard to say when it's appropriate and when it's not. <br /><br />I think that sort of quick trashing of some things would go down just fine--I'm always happy to hear people make fun of scientology and the like. I think she may just have gotten sort of the wrong idea about EP. Though it has its problems and there are legitimate feminist Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-47846151420415138162012-12-06T20:03:14.550-06:002012-12-06T20:03:14.550-06:00"You're guilty of arguing 'ad hominem..."You're guilty of arguing 'ad hominem' when you focus on the person making an argument <i>instead of on the argument itself</i>."<br /><br />Emphasis added. There's nothing necessarily wrong with pointing out that a speaker lacks the background knowledge needed to make his/her argument -- especially when it comes with actual demonstrations showing how that lack of J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-34785851582433824972012-12-06T19:31:03.512-06:002012-12-06T19:31:03.512-06:00I can understand that he was offended--she did tre...I can understand that he was offended--she did treat his field of study like it was (largely) rubbish. I'd be offended if someone gave a talk like that about philosophy. So--OK!--it's unerstandable that he responded (shall we say) vigorously.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27277070590477781442012-12-06T18:39:59.912-06:002012-12-06T18:39:59.912-06:00Well, yes! If you are subjected to see the scienti...Well, yes! If you are subjected to see the scientific field you studied being misrepresented and attacked because of an ideological agenda, there should be something wrong with you if you were all hugs and rainbows!<br /><br />Tone matters - it helps transmit the message! So if you're outraged, it's understandable if you shouted.<br /><br />BTW, Clint didn't shout or anything. He was David Osoriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07634563791540261616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-29675046408990260192012-12-06T18:31:28.154-06:002012-12-06T18:31:28.154-06:00Most people get free access to scientific papers t...Most people get free access to scientific papers through academic libraries. He's worried that her not being an academic prevents her from having that access. Was it really a problem that I just talked about access to libraries and didn't spell that out?<br /><br />You're guilty of arguing "ad hominem" when you focus on the peron making an argument instead of on the Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-28586239837875498362012-12-06T16:36:19.462-06:002012-12-06T16:36:19.462-06:00"And then he blasts away in a flagrantly ad h..."And then he blasts away in a flagrantly ad hominem fashion."<br /><br />What examples of flagrant ad hominems do you have in mind? I'm not even sure where you get the idea that he "speculates that she doesn't even have access to a library," since he doesn't even mention the word "library" once. He does say, "It is true that Watson is not an academicJ. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27168586888917790142012-12-06T07:35:47.068-06:002012-12-06T07:35:47.068-06:00JJ, You misconstrued that sentence--what I'm s...JJ, You misconstrued that sentence--what I'm saying is that Clint thinks excoriating EP makes you a science denialist. Why do I say that? In the very first paragraph, he decries the way "science is routinely attacked by subsets of the very same group of earthlings ...." So, attacking science is the villain. Then he lists various attackers--people against GMOS, against nuclear powerJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-63260604373463854842012-12-06T05:53:59.558-06:002012-12-06T05:53:59.558-06:00"Clint seems to say that excoriating EP on fe..."Clint seems to say that excoriating EP on feminist grounds makes you a science denialist."<br /><br />No, he's saying that (1) Watson's talk was full of errors -- <i>a claim that he documents and backs up with cited sources</i> -- and (2) that the sorts of errors that Watson made fit the pattern one sees in science denialism. Feminism is barely mentioned in Clint's piece.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-25202769681387293672012-12-06T04:37:21.058-06:002012-12-06T04:37:21.058-06:00The Tippling Philosopher
Now some defendants of h...<a href="http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2012/12/05/sceptical-arrogance-and-evolutionary-psychology/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+sciblogsnz+(SciBlogs.co.nz)" rel="nofollow">The Tippling Philosopher</a><br /><br />Now some defendants of her talk suggest she was presenting a case against pop psychology in the media (such as the Zvan link above). However, A. Nobodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-9306357942236600822012-12-06T04:12:10.253-06:002012-12-06T04:12:10.253-06:00Back when I first stumbled across skepticism, one ...Back when I first stumbled across skepticism, one the bigger points I saw made in the Evolution Wars (or at least those skirmishes involving Miller and others) is the quick pace at which science changes. Obviously I have no personal knowledge of what's required at the upper echelons, but this seemed to be both key and reasonable point.<br /><br />The more basic degrees and lack of practice juliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-67619778577907241942012-12-05T22:49:26.910-06:002012-12-05T22:49:26.910-06:00The credentials game can be played by lots of diff...The credentials game can be played by lots of different standards. By academic standards, the credentials of those writers don't look so good. Ridley is now a writer, not a practicing scientist. He doesn't do scientific research. Same goes for Wright and Angier--they're writers. Lots of people in academia look down as such people as if they wrote fluff. Same goes for Richard Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-9272509957979183072012-12-05T22:12:03.388-06:002012-12-05T22:12:03.388-06:00I think Ed's analysis is informed, thorough, a...I think Ed's analysis is informed, thorough, and charitable, but that's not really the reason I'm commenting. I just wanted to point out a couple of factual errors in this section:<br /><br />"If it's a problem that Watson has insufficient science credentials, it's got to be a problem that Emily Yoffe and Amanda Shaffer aren't scientists, and neither are my favorite Miranda Celeste Halehttp://www.mirandaceleste.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-42273948030916802892012-12-05T21:49:47.913-06:002012-12-05T21:49:47.913-06:00I don't think she has to retract the entire ta...I don't think she has to retract the entire talk either but the few factual corrections she list would probably go further if she took the time to understand how a good EP study would go and where one can find one. <br /><br />Either way, I enjoyed her talk and would recommend it to anyone curious about EP claims in popular media. Too bad I didn't find it funny. (Probably a personal juliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-44234509294670803302012-12-05T20:47:34.794-06:002012-12-05T20:47:34.794-06:00"The Rebecca Watson hatedom"...ha! I hav..."The Rebecca Watson hatedom"...ha! I have no problem at all with normal debate--it's just the hatedom that makes me ill. <br /><br />As for Cordelia Fine...I'm not saying Rebecca is just like Cordelia Fine. Rebecca is more of a science communicator-entertainer and Fine is a researcher-writer with much more academic background. Rather, I'm making a reductio ad absurdum: Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-74340333830408118302012-12-05T19:22:35.572-06:002012-12-05T19:22:35.572-06:00Here's an interesting bit from James Croft'...Here's an interesting bit from James Croft's <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofthefuture/2012/11/skepticon-5-day-two-rebecca-watson-on-evolutionary-psychology/" rel="nofollow">recounting</a> of Watson's Skepticon 5 talk:<br /><br />"Watson also shone an unflattering light on evolutionary psychology, which is a discipline with a lot of problems. Watson’s recounting of J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-34850694350075470532012-12-05T14:44:48.902-06:002012-12-05T14:44:48.902-06:00Getting this only requires 2nd grade reading skill...Getting this only requires 2nd grade reading skills, but OK, I'll explain. The bit about the lectern was a JOKE. See it now?<br /><br />As I already said, continuing to read Clint after the ridiculous paragraph about science denialism would be like reading an article that starts off calling Obama a socialist. Losing some readers is the price of rhetorical excess.<br /><br />I'm not going Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-47976276623377521952012-12-05T14:28:27.434-06:002012-12-05T14:28:27.434-06:00"I'm afraid I lost interest.... you simpl..."I'm afraid I lost interest.... you simply have to love the way Watson's hair and top match the lectern."<br /><br />Well, that's a relief. Here I thought you might condemn Clint with due regard for ensuring that you carefully read his entire critique, or worse yet, endorse Watson's talk because you felt she had academic or professional credibility.<br /><br />It is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-91760283381290350672012-12-05T12:33:59.724-06:002012-12-05T12:33:59.724-06:00Hmm, call me suspicious, but I don't really th...Hmm, call me suspicious, but I don't really think the interview is what's stopping people from understanding the talk. It's Everything Else!Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-68635990122809200192012-12-05T12:05:52.046-06:002012-12-05T12:05:52.046-06:00Jean, I agree that this is where the focus needs t...Jean, I agree that this is where the focus needs to be. I find the interview relevant because a number of people appear to be confused while viewing the talk on its own. I suspect that this confusion is due in part to the framing around the talk when they saw it. I think the interview, in which she describes the kind of criticism she thinks needs to be done, provides an alternate framing that mayStephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-72929382351028928172012-12-05T10:53:25.120-06:002012-12-05T10:53:25.120-06:00Stephanie, I don't really see the relevance of...Stephanie, I don't really see the relevance of the interview, even if it was concurrent with another version of the talk. Analogy: I recently gave a talk about Alex Rosenberg's new book "The Atheist's Guide to Reality." The talk had a certain structure and argument. Prior to the talk, I could easily have said this or that--I could have said, for example, "I hate Alex Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-18404568030123869462012-12-05T10:17:07.712-06:002012-12-05T10:17:07.712-06:00Torquil, That analogy doesn't quite work for m...Torquil, That analogy doesn't quite work for me because it ignores the structure of her argument. You are imagining someone who's goal is to refute feminism, and who uses shallow examples of media feminism as ammunition. But RW's goal wasn't to refute EP. She didn't use media examples as ammunition against EP. See my last comment for the way I think her argument goes.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-50138009481409944722012-12-05T10:11:33.872-06:002012-12-05T10:11:33.872-06:00The November interview is actually relevant. It...The November interview is actually relevant. It's discussing the same talk given then. I put up a transcript of it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/12/05/once-you-look-past-the-headlines/<br /><br />I don't know that it says what David says it says, but I think people should judge for themselves.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-84766807682161512202012-12-05T09:51:10.617-06:002012-12-05T09:51:10.617-06:00As I keep saying (in the comments), I think you h...As I keep saying (in the comments), I think you have to be clear about her thesis, before you can assess the argument. Here's how I'd summarize the thesis (or theses)--<br /><br />1. We are being sent messages about gender differences on the science pages of newspapers<br /><br />2. But the science is often bad science--it's very often bad "pop evolutionary psychology" (aJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-782055088458325802012-12-05T03:32:45.779-06:002012-12-05T03:32:45.779-06:00Perhaps the term 'denialist' is inflammato...Perhaps the term 'denialist' is inflammatory, but I can see why some people are a bit infalmed by this talk as well, and Watson's defence seems a little dishonest. It is as if someone had stood up to launch an attack on the intellectual bogosity of feminism, basing the entire talk on expamples of 'feminism' drawn from editorials in the daily mail' and then gone all wide Torquil maceneilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-53520918922143946492012-12-04T19:40:50.457-06:002012-12-04T19:40:50.457-06:00Oy.Oy.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.com