One of the more distressing things about organized skepticism is how they’ve tainted science and reason — too often it seems that opportunists have grabbed the principles as handy talking points that they can babble about while acting in ways that befoul the good ideas. But sometimes they get caught at it.
Jason Kottke wrote a post crediting Michael Shermer with popularizing Carl Sagan’s rules — his baloney detection kit. Then he was informed about Shermer’s reputation, so he rewrote the post and put in this addendum.
Update: After I posted this, a reader let me know that Michael Shermer has been accused by several women of sexually inappropriate & predatory behavior and rape at professional conferences. I personally believe women, and I further believe that if Shermer was actually serious about rationality and his ten rules for critical thinking listed above, he wouldn’t have pulled this shit in the first place (nor tried to hamfistedly explain it away). I’ve rewritten the post to remove the references to Shermer, which actually made it more succinct and put the focus fully on Sagan, which was my intention in the first place (the title remains unchanged). (via @dmetilli)
It’s dismaying that it takes this long to get the word out, but eventually, we can hope the truth will win. It’s just a shame that someone can profit for so long off Carl Sagan’s reputation when their life is a standing repudiation of Sagan’s ideas.
Shermer still gets invited to skeptic events, by the way.
“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on” is sadly all too true, but the truth does get there eventually.
It also shows how people can be seriously out of loop.
Until I saw the linked timeline from Lousy Canuck, I didn’t appreciate the full weight of the allegations. I think the history of how this came out — in dribbles, with accusations originally anonymous — leaves many people with the impression that the case is weaker than it really is.
Yep, that’s all that needs done. Rewrite history to remove the things you don’t approve of. Not like that hasn’t been done since time immemorial. I never heard of Shermer till I came here, but I had not really listened to Sagan either. Shermer obviously had a very large “fan” base, since it is such a ongoing problem according to this blog. His sins do not erase everything he has said and accomplished that has inspired people to become his fans. Not every mention of someone has to have an apologetic prefix of a list of all the shitty things about them.
I don’t know how big Shermer’s “fan base” is, but he has a column in Scientific American and otherwise remains prominent. I disapprove of him without the accusations of sexual assault, he’s a glibertarian and generally intellectually dishonest.
I was listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s podcast last week, and the episode was a panel discussion on the science of morality, with Shermer as one of the panelists.
Yes, I know Shermer has written a book on the subject, and technically one doesn’t have to be a moral paragon to speak about the science of morality, but there is still something quite galling about listening to Shermer pontificate about human morality — I just couldn’t make it through the episode.
Equating rewriting an article with rewriting history is so mindbendingly dishonest I’m surprised even you would try it, paxoll.
@KG From what it sounded like, the part about Shermer was about the history of the topic he was talking about.
So yes, ignoring part of his perception on history about Shermer, is not much different then ignoring the any other part of history. Either he did popularize it for new audiences who have never heard of Sagan, or he didn’t. Obviously his opinion on the matter was very much that he DID because that is what he wrote originally. If he suddenly changes his mind after finding out Shermer was a sexist predator, then the author is the one being “mindbendingly dishonest”.
paxoll@8,
No, he is not being in the least dishonest, unlike you. It is not dishonest to decide, for any reason whatever, to rewrite an article in such a way that the topic it deals with is narrowed, so long as the narrower topic is honestly dealt with. And clearly, Shermer was not involved in Sagan’s original formulation of his “tools for critical thinking”, which is what the article now covers. Moreover, Kottke makes it clear that he has rewritten his post, and explains how and why. The term “rewriting history”, as I am confident you are well aware, refers to incidents such as the removal of Trotsky from Soviet accounts of the Russian Revolution following his downfall, when there was of course no admission at all that such a change had been made, let alone an explanation of why it was made. And unlike Shermer’s complete lack of a role in Sagan’s original formulation, Trotsky was centrally important in the Russian Revolution.
@KG it was an turn of phrase since he was literally rewriting, and the purpose of the rewrite is the same. To remove from public view something that people are trying to ignore/forget.
Paxoll
Ideas have to stand on their own merits. Separate from the source.
Afterwards the quality of the idea reflects upon the source.
jack16
Except people aren’t trying to ignore/forget that Michael Shermer is a rapist. In fact, people are making sure that everyone acknowledges/remembers that Michael Shermer is a rapist. And when other people find out that Michael Shermer is a rapist, they’ll probably decide that promoting a known rapist is a stupid idea, particularly when the rapist in question, Michael Shermer, was so tangential to the point of the original article. See, if people wanted to remove a rapist such as Michael Shermer from public view, they wouldn’t include a statement about modifying the article in light of the fact that Michael Shermer is a rapist. Nor would they blog about and praise an article that now mentions that Michael Shermer is a rapist.
Paxoll,
Put it this way: If it is factually true that Michael Shermer popularised Carl Sagan’s rules and that history would have unfolded in significantly different ways that would not make sense except for explaining Michael Shermer’s role in popularising that view; and if a writer made a concerted effort to hide this fact, then I would agree with you.
But I’m not sure Michael Shermer’s efforts played that sort of essential role.
——–
I hadn’t heard of Michael Shermer’s “activities” before I was made aware of them on this blog. I did then look up a few sources (“rational wiki” for example, which includes a number of outside links), and I think the accusations are probably convincing that he has displayed sexually predatory behaviour, and possibly even one episode of rape – in that he encouraged someone to get drunk before then having sex with her. I also think that he possibly did feel at the time that he was not doing anything wrong – except for the rape charge if true – but that, if he still doesn’t think so, he is in denial.
Similar for Lawrence Krauss, whose latest book I was about to purchase when the story broke. I now cannot bring myself to buy his book, even though it is on a scientific topic on which I was interested in hearing his view.
—————-
As for poor old Geoffrey Rush…I truly hope he is innocent. I know John White who wrote the music for Romper Stomper and who knew Russell Crowe and Geoffrey Rush professionally. He was always full of admiration for Geoffrey Rush (but don’t ask him about Russell Crowe!), describing him as gentle, friendly, self-effacing, and person oriented. He has become a victim of the MeToo movement regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty. He is presently suing the newspaper that “exposed” him, but his professional life is probably ruined regardless of the outcome.
HE’S a victim regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty?
@Billyjoe
The author of the article obviously thought this at the time he wrote the article or he wouldn’t have written it that way. The referenced article in the post even has a video with Shermer talking about Carl Sagan.
@gmcard
Me-
Just one of those shitty things, right, nothing to stress over.
paxoll: yeah yeah writing a RAPIST out of history is so unjust to that poor RAPIST!
Get to fuck
Not every mention of Sagan has to reference Michael Shermer. So I guess all’s square, then.
Shermer’s earned his epithet. You or others don’t like people referring to him as Michael Shermer, Noted Rapist? Too bad. Stop trying to re-write history to remove the things you don’t approve of.
he added a bit of history to compensate.
also? he clearly identified other reasons for removing the references in his article to Shermer.
also? he can do whatever the fuck he wants with his own writing, you pretentious asshat.
heh.
I’m sensing a theme here, but can’t quite put my finger on it.
I figure it’s one of the following.
1. Michael Shermer is a rapist
2. Michael Shermer is a rapist
3. Michael Shermer is a rapist
4. Michael Shermer is a rapist
5. Carl Sagan.
I know it has to be one of these things, but I just can’t tell which!
a little help?
@15
*whoosh*
I don’t understand the need for hyperbole.
An alleged victim once accused Michael Shermer of getting her drunk and then having sex with her while she was drunk. She was said to be visibly upset afterwards suggesting that, if the witnes was reliable and reported what they witnessed accurately, there is probably some truth in the allegation. The alleged perpetrator has claimed it was consensual. The alleged victim never made a police report. So he has never been charged let alone convicted of rape.
On the other hand, there is probably reasonably good evidence that he has exhibited sexually predatory behaviour. He claims he never saw it as predatory but he had a partner at the time and therefore must have been aware that his behaviour could harm at least one person. Organisers of sceptic events have warned him about his behaviour so alleged victims have felt strongly enough to complain about him to the organisers if not the police.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he is at least guilty of sexually predatory behaviour, with potential adverse consequences for his partner, regardless of whether or not he himself saw it as predatory. It is also reasonable to conclude that there was possibly one episode of unreported rape, even if he himself saw it as consensual.
But, if you are going to refer to Michael Shermer as a “Noted Rapist”, then how would you are now going to describe Harvey Weinstein to illustrate the wide difference between the two?
On this blog, I, myself, have been accused of rape, been called a rapist, and had it said to me that “yeah, you’re definitely a rapist”. I can only conclude that the term, as used on this blog, has lost all meaning. And that is a problem whether you realise it or not.
billyjoe #22
I missed that. Link, please.
billyjoe
I suspect that there are loads more things you don’t understand either.
Lofty #24
I suspect you are correct.
@chigau #23:
Possibly referring to this thread in January? (re: Aziz Ansari)
#158, #320, #326, #339, #356 are of interest.
That was the first thread I found at any rate.
339 and 356 are not relevant, but 158, 320, and 326 are close enough that I’m not offended billyjoe might feel he was called a rapist. The language never quite gets there, but it gets close enough that I understand how billyjoe might feel hurt and/or defensive.
Still, there’s the point that those three comments weren’t made out of nowhere. They were responding to actual things that billyjoe said that read – to the people making those 3 comments – like the words of someone willing to excuse rape.
in one section of that thread, billyjoe says:
This isn’t some vague, confusing statement. billyjoe is saying that he is for imposing no consequences until he can get hold of the results of a criminal trial, or, theoretically, the conclusions of some equally rigorous process. billyjoe is also saying that other people in the argument – his rhetorical opponents – are using the heuristic “accused therefore guilty”.
billyjoe also makes a number of appeals to refrain from imposing consequences on those credibly accused of rape. It’s not always clear exactly how long billyjoe advocates an employer or a conference organizer should refrain, but the only clear standard I found billyjoe advance was “beyond reasonable doubt”.
To be clear, and to be fair to billyjoe, some of his other statements actually appear to contradict any assertion that this hard evidentiary floor is necessary. Nonetheless, there simply is no clear standard I can find other than “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Therefore, in that thread billyjoe gives an impression of being very similar to the type of arguer we’ve seen many times here on Pharyngula, a person who doesn’t deny that rape happens, but paints people who want to act on reports of rape as unreasonable right up until the moment that a conviction is returned by a court of law (and sometimes not even then). Because of that history by others, and because of what the commenters there perceived as billyjoe’s unwillingness to listen and learn, billyjoe was treated harshly.
I don’t think it’s fair to call billyjoe a rapist (and although billyjoe didn’t seem to evidence much shift in position over that thread, I think there’s been some listening and learning over longer periods than single threads and billyjoe’s new language isn’t as hardline as it was there), but if you’re going to try to make “smells like a rapist” = “billyjoe is actually a rapist”, I think it’s only fair to recognize what scent in the air might have spurred someone to write that phrase.
@Crip Dyke #27:
Yes.
I was not. It looked like billyjoe, #22 here, was trying to characterize the interaction that way.
Original context, and your summary, refute him.
@Crip Dyke #27:
Sorry. I’d initially drafted my comment #26 with a line about a mismatch between the found thread and its characterization. It didn’t make it through editing, and the resulting link – without description – was too easily interpreted as endorsement of the claim.
Thanks SkyCaptain.
I do appreciate your work in identifying the kinds of comments to which billyjoe might have been responding. (And though we obviously agree that that thread doesn’t support billyjoe’s claim as written, it’s still possible that some intemperate commenter flat out called him a rapist.) Nice research, and have a good day, eh?
Put me down for “Serial sexual predator hagfish who taints everyone and everything he encounters with foul slime”.
Nice, abbeycadabra!
Of course, now that you’ve made the connection, the Pentagon is going to want to weaponize him.