All you have to do is wind him up and watch him go. Michael Shermer won’t shut up even when he’s threatening someone with lawsuits. Phil Torres received a nastygram from him, and paraphrased him in a public post.
What makes it especially amusing is that Shermer then joins in the comments, repeats his bluster at length, and goes on and on about how awful he finds Torres.
Anyone remember this ‘interview’ by Ian Murphy with Shermer? He is so predictable.
Oh yes, I remember that interview. These people, who shrug over ’emo snowflakes’ certainly do have very thin skins.
He lost me at “censorship.” That’s unacceptably sloppy thinking, if he’s going to carry forward a critique of discussion in the atheist/skeptical community. That’s, dare I say, “Boghossian-level wrong.”
Marcus @2
Normally I’d agree, but it’s gotta feel great to throw that misused word back at the very same people and their fellow travellers who revel in using that accusation against those of us on the other side of the divide. It’s not correct, but hopefully it has some sting.
As an Anti-theist, I enjoy watching clips of ‘New Atheists’ debating ideas and having discussions. Personally, I think Shermer has made some good points and when I watched something with which I disagreed, I debated it within myself for awhile then simply discarded that argument as unhelpful. I am a Progressive, and as a student of Street Epistemology, I have also run into difficulties personally with certain content discussed by Peter Boghossian. However, it is possible to disagree with someone’s view on a topic without discarding their more valuable contributions to the cause. I am disheartened however, that you were blocked from the SE group. That runs counter to everything SE stands for. Have you contacted Anthony Magnabosco on FB? I feel that he would provide good discussion on your questions. I am against censorship in all its forms and strongly believe that echo chambers are creating a very dangerous atmosphere globally.
By the way, one time I was having a heart-to-heart with my company’s legal council and jokingly said something like, “you lawyers must really hate some of your clients.” She smiled slowly and said, “we hate all of our clients (beat pause) – except you.”
Tabby Lavalamp@#3:
Normally I’d agree, but it’s gotta feel great to throw that misused word back at the very same people and their fellow travellers who revel in using that accusation against those of us on the other side of the divide. It’s not correct, but hopefully it has some sting.
Fair enough.
I’m probably pretty narrow-minded about keeping language precise. (I need to do an episode of Argument Clinic on censorship…)
tvismindcontrol @ 4:
SE doesn’t seem to stand for excellence in reading comprehension – PZ is not the same person who is quoted, that would be Phil Torres.
I thought this would be about the TechKnow host, but apparently it’s a completely different Phil Torres.
I was unfamiliar with Street Epistemology so I looked it up. I would be just as annoyed by atheists pushing their beliefs on me in the street as I am by the religious knocking on my door to give me “literature” or proselytizing to me in any public setting.
Why do these guys turn every human interaction into a sports competition? What exactly do they win?
While I certainly can see Shermer being an utter schmuck, I have too often seen the “Just asking questions” excuse used to cover a lot of self-righteous and disruptive wankery. Without an actual screencap to show what was said and in what context, Torres’s complaints give off a distinctive smell. I’m not saying he’s full of shit, just that the way his post is written, it’s easy to come to that conclusion.
Torres’ response to Shermer in the facebook threat was absolute ownage. Wow, he totally nailed it.
@Tethys:
Actually, I’ve watched two or three videos – admittedly not a large sample – and found that the people I’ve watched have been careful NOT to say anything about what they believe, save when directly asked, and then only the minimum amount necessary to answer the question. I was actually impressed with how little they injected direct statements of their beliefs.
Obviously, the simple fact that they’re bothering to do epistemology at all is evidence about about what they believe about the value of epistemology, but if you go that route then buying bread at the store is evidence about certain of your beliefs.
As for what they win, I think that just a general improvement in the thinking of one’s society is a net win. If people think about why they’re certain (or not) about what they think they know, then when we talk about the value of certain pieces of evidence for, say, the cost effectiveness of certain CO2 reduction measures, we can have a more productive conversation than if “I believe global warming isn’t happening!” is evidence of value equal to satellite measurements of global mean surface temps or the Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric concentration records.
Shermer is toxic, as is DJ who is still baiting the rape victim on FB.
Not usually the case, but I’d fully support tone-trolling to close these people down. They have nothing of value to say.
But did I read the OP right – and there is a new legal threat coming from Shermer?
No. He’s making vague noises, threatening Torres with the possibility of a lawsuit.
Banned from Coyne’s blog for nothing?
welcome to the club!
Jerry should have retired from public blogging about 5 years ago.
it’s a pathetic attempt at self-affirmation.
nothing more.
Ichthyic @14:
But then he wouldn’t have anywhere that he could go to complain about how safe spaces are ruining college students without having to hear any dissenting voices.
Tethys @8 street epistemology is not pushing a belief. When done badly it can certainly be a form of JAQing off. When done well its educational and everybody wins.
@11-Crip Dyke
Yeah I wouldn’t casually dismiss SE because Boghossian wrote a book about it. That would be genetic fallacy. Where new atheism may tend to get confrontational and itch for a verbal street brawl over ideational content and brute facts, SE seems to me more reserved and uses active listening to engage people where they are at and try to address the manner in how people formed their beliefs versus the beliefs themselves. It’s rehashed Socratic maieutics (or “midwifery”) to draw stuff out of the person you are talking to and help induce some state of internal conflict that lacking interpersonal confrontation results in less of a doubling down response. I would, invoking the state of closure that Boghossian addresses in his book, make the analogy of melting a sugar cube with water. People should become more comfortable with uncertainty and acknowledge ignorance. There is a wider closure literature that I have read about in popularized form that I am ignorant of.
SE folks go to campuses and practice their craft. I feel more confrontational than that. I came from the confrontational vanquish your opponents and taste their tears milieu of usenet. So SE is a positive step up.
Too bad Boghossian seems to have achieved rigid certitude or closure to elements of “regressive” left or “sjw” atheism. SE itself seems OK. Babies and bathwater.
#8 Tethys #11 Crip Dyke
I don’t know how much involvement Boghossian has with the Street Epistemology approach, but I found Anthony Magnabosco’s youtube videos very thoughtful and non-confrontational or judgemental; very much in defiance of the ‘arrogant atheist’ cliche.
“Street epistemology” can be sincere and thoughtful; it can also be nasty and stupid. At it’s best it’s helping people question their premises and making them think.
At its worst…well, what Ray Comfort does is also a kind of street epistemology.
Though it’s peripheral to the subject here, I’d be interested in knowing how many people have been banned from Jerry Coyne’s blog (yes, it is a blog), and why.
I’ll start. I was banned (or so I believe) for showing insufficient reverence for his views on species concepts.
I don’t think I’m banned, but I don’t know since I haven’t even bothered to try and comment for years — the comments section is overrun with slymepitters, who have found it a copacetic home away from the pit.
The same is true of the ‘Friendly’ Atheist — I don’t read it any more because he gives slymers free rein.
I was banned (the feeling was mutual) for making a comment about a friend of his on another blog. He also tried to get me banned from someone else’s blog. I haven’t read his blog in years, but going by various scattered comments here it seems he’s continued his downward slide. Very disappointing.
I looked it up to see what the various you-tube atheists meant by street epistemology. Watching arguments for atheism is not of any interest to me. AFAICT, they are trying to repackage the Socratic method of discourse into something that sounds cool and hip. I agree that many people could use a few lessons on how to carry on a logical discussion, but I’ve always felt it is socially impolite to randomly ask people questions about their personal beliefs. A largish segment of the target audience will tune out at the word epistemology, no matter how ‘street’ you try to be.
Phil Torres is calling it “evangelizing for epistemology” in his quoted post. I am very averse to evangelizing in any form, and find it absurd for atheists to misuse the term while claiming the rational high ground. . All the terms imply sides, and battle. It’s all a pissing contest. No thanks…
Others seem to have taken the “obnoxious atheist” trope even further than Shermer or Coyne.
RawStory.com currently has an item on its front page:
– but at present clicking it leads only to a “The page you are looking for doesn’t seem to exist.” message.
Kelley’s lawyers probably don’t esteem him very highly either.