I have some hopes for the new leader of CFI, Robyn Blumner, so I’ll look forward to her future commentary. In particular, I’d like to know if she still thinks women no longer need the Equal Rights Amendment, as she wrote in 2001, or whether we can expect more dismissals of responses to sexist remarks as hysterical political correctness, as she wrote in 2005.
To be fair, she also wrote stuff about being an atheist in 2004 and about torture in 2008 and about feel-good culture in 2009 and most recently, her opposition to religion in politics…and I can agree with her comments there.
But man, some of the old stuff on record is troubling.
Interestingly, this is part of CFI’s merger with the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Haven’t we have reason to be skeptical of them as well? It seems like this might be a step backward.
I forgot to add the link to the CFI’s actual announcement: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/an_important_announcement_from_cfi_president_ronald_a._lindsay/
Definitely wait and see, with a skeptical eye to what is said. Her writings give me a “bit of concern” as far as women’s issues go.
People can change with time and exposure to new ideas. The Internet is forever (for certain values of “forever”. So I use my 5Y rule.
I generally give people five year windows. Say something stupid over 5 ago, you get benefit of the doubt. Under 5, none for you.
Wow. She actually used the word “hysteria” too. Does she not know the history behind that word?
CFI wtf?, It’s best if you define an organisation (?) in full, then use the acronym thereafter.
Mentioned and defined in a post from yesterday:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/21/what-does-it-mean/
Apparently you missed it.
@cnocspeireag #6:
‘wtf?’ Please, I need help in understanding this
acronyminitialism. Desperately.Also mentioned in the URL and linked to in the second comment.
and there’s always google
cnocspeireag @6, Maybe five hours too late, but:
CFI =
Center for Inquiry
Amy Roth of Skepchick just weighed in: http://skepchick.org/2016/01/assholes-and-heads/ I wonder if this will eventually roll JREF and American Atheists in as well? It would make it awfully easier to define ourselves in relationship to movement atheism. We could define the new group as: “I’m with stupid”, and our loose collection of non-movement athiests and feminists as: “I’m not with stupid.”
Why did they sign her? Was Christina Hoff Sommers not available?
This, from Amy’s piece, really confuses me. Skepticism has little to say about any of these issues, as they hinge on political value judgements. Of course skeptic organisations wouldn’t be bothered with those things.
And for that matter, why do we care about Robyn’s views on political correctness?
Personally, I’m curious about her views on UFOs. I think that’s more relevant for a skeptics organization.
@ Penny L, 14:
My skepticism has a great deal to say about all of those issues because they’re all areas that test our biased assumptions about the world. For example, I think most people would agree that children who break the rules in class should be treated equally regardless of race. But studies indicate that students of color are more likely to be punished (and punished more harshly) than white students who break the same rules. So the real debate is whether we think the studies are accurate and, if yes, how we can eliminate discriminatory punishment. A skeptical examination of punishment in schools is helpful for understanding the issue.
Likewise, nearly every “debate” about the wage gap turns into a discussion of whether there actually is a wage gap because people largely agree that men and women should get equal pay for equal work. Skepticism is all about deciphering the truth of these claims. I don’t need in-depth analysis to know that UFOs aren’t real, but a good analysis about all the causes behind the wage gap would be fantastic.
Why shouldn’t we? But then, if one is not a progressive, why bother with their drivel other than to laugh at it, and also ignore their organization….
Because clearly, whether somebody believes in bigfoot or opens a townhall meeting with the Lord’s Prayer is MUCH more important than whether somebody imposes their religious misogyny on people with uteri…
You are confused about terms. Skepticism is a part of freethinking, where present dogma, like everything is equal if laws say so, is challenged by examining empirical evidence. That empirical evidencce shows wage gaps caused by misogyny, rape culture, institutionalized bigotry, etc. If one follows the evidence, one become socially liberal/progressive to correct this. All based on skepticism of the status quo.
And of course science can tell us a lot about which measures are most effective in dealing with discipline problems and suspending students and getting them into prison are clearly NOT effective. Shouldn’t people who value science care about whether bright minds are wasted?
Science can tell us a lot about the reasons of crime, how to prevent it in the first place and how to keep people from becoming repeated offenders.
Of course, science cannot inform us about your personal goals. Maybe you’re just a racist asshole who’s happy to send black kids to prison…
Penny L, resident contrarian, what is meant by saying that a “school to prison pipeline” is a “political value judgment”, anyway? Are we to believe that such a practice actually has some merit that is able to be argued for with a straight face? The same with institutional racism? Is this one of those “both sides have arguments pro and con therefore they are both equitable?” Cause if so, then lol.
throwaway – “both sides have arguments pro and con therefore they are both equitable?”
Like Creationsim vs. evolution – let’s have both sides because we are totally critical of evolution and asking difficult questions of it and want creationism because it is soothing to our emotional state – both scientific reasons, of course, and equal.
Reason and skepticism can inform a political debate, but they are almost never decisive. Simply analyzing data on the “school to prison pipeline”tells us nothing about (a) whether that is a problem that should be addressed by public policy or, (b) if so, at what policy level it should be addressed (federal, state, local), or (c) what the form of that policy should take.
And if you’re one of those “facts skew left” people who believe that no one to the right of Hillary ever has an argument backed up with facts or reason, then also lol. Almost everything both sides of the political debate believes is determined by value judgements which are not scientific questions.
Penny L
You are, of course, completely right with a. Science and skepticism are not moral guidelines. Science and skepticism will inform you that this harms youth of colour and is racist. You can still decide that you actually want to be a racist bastard and lock black youth up.
b is of course something that science can tell you something about as we are able to compare different approaches and evaluate their outcomes.
You still get to decide whether you want to actually try the most effective approach. See above.
WRONG, idiological breath.
Actually since the EVIDENCE says it is a result of residual institutional bigotry (show otherwise with solid evidence), it should be addressed at every level to make the bigots stop behaving like bigots and punish the bigots, not the students.
You have no idea of how to analyze data, or what it means.
Why are you so hung up on maintaining the status quo? Afraid change for the better will leave you behind?