Alan seemed to insinuate in my last thread that I didn’t explain WHY I think skeptics are full of hot air. So, in order to do so in a manner in which hopefully he can better understand, first I think I should start with a list of who these skeptic mouthpieces are, and then I can perhaps later fill in some of their statements, some of their backgrounds, and some of their beliefs. I hope this will ease Alan’s concerns. So, off the top of my head, here are some of the top ones I can think of. Sort of a Hall of Fame of atheist windbags. Guys who know everything about the universe, because they tell you so. Should be a useful database that we can refer back to later in other conversations. More added later:
In no particular order of annoying windiness.
- Neil Degrasse Tyson
- Sean M. Carroll
- Steven Novella
- Brian Greene
- Brian Cox
- Lawrence Krauss
- Michael Shermer
- Brian Dunning
- Phil Plait
- Jerry Coyne
- James Randi
- Cara Santa Maria
- Seth Shostak
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- Robert Sapolsky
- Rebecca Watson
- Eugenie Scott
- Bill Nye
- PZ Myers
- Karen Stollznow
Well, its a good start. These are just sort of the most obvious, but its helpful to see where the tentacles grow from.
I would recommend the addition of “phoodoo”.
phoodoo:
Quotes, please.
phoodoo,
Other than Coyne, Dawkins and PZ Myers, most of the ones you listed are just opportunists, as far as I can tell… They are just filling in the need Dawkins calls: an intellectual fulfillment. I call it “Give me an excuse, something to believe in, other than God”.
They would do just as well convincing people of: multiverse or anyverse, panspermia, bolt of lightning or ventology origins (if they haven’t done so already), or aliens playing with our brains, if the universe turns out to be much, much younger than needed for the Darwinian belief to have some merit…
I note with interest that to qualify for phoodoo’s list, one must be an atheist. This dire condition is apparently sufficient to disregard anything they might have to say about anything. Which leads me to wonder, if any of these people should happen to find Jesus, whether their knowledge of biology, astronomy, psychology, physics, etc. would suddenly become admirable.
I have been pondering an OP for a long time on one of the names and the venom that they inspire in phoodoo. I like how recent phoodoo attempts to be reasonable and make arguments, but his attempts to discredit the name in question were indefensible then and they’ll be just the same now. And it’ll be a nice contrast against his ‘hot air’ claims.
What, like you know everything about the FBI’s use of psychics but refuse to back up your claims?
Neil Rickert,
To the Hall of Fame of atheist skeptics?
Why Neil, I mean, why, Neil.
I nominate Ken Miller and Francis Collins.
Haha, I wonder what you did before the internet? How in the world did you ever learn to brush your teeth?
Hey, can you get me a run down of the daily work schedule at area 51, just pull it offline for me, would you?
Also, can you please prove you are not a Russian Bot. Why do you refuse to back up the claim that you are human?
No, just to the phoodoo list of skeptics.
The main thing that I find interesting about this list is that it’s composed of Internet-driven celebrity-scientists. If not for the Internet — blogs, podcasts, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter — these people who have almost no “following.” Dawkins was a well-known popularizer of Darwinism, sure, but before the New Atheism and social media, he wasn’t nearly as well known and loved as Stephen Jay Gould. Others, like Coyne and Myers, would be completely unknown outside of their specific technical domain if not for the Internet. So this list really brings home to me how much “the skeptical movement” is an Internet-powered phenomenon.
Phoodoo writes
Hardly an insinuation as you made no case in support of “Why skeptics are full of hot air”.
I take it you are referring to this comment of mine:
“Why skeptics are full of hot air” is the title of phoodoo’s OP. I presume it would answer “why are skeptics so full of hot air” at some point. Skepticism isn’t a lifestyle. You can only be skeptical of something. You can be skeptical of evolutionary theory. Phoodoo is skeptical of evolutionary theory. Is phoodoo thus full of hot air?
At least now you’ve offered a list of names (seven of which I’ve not heard of and several others who I recognize the name but couldn’t say I’ve taken much notice of). Brian Cox an atheist windbag? He’s a physicist turned TV presenter who does not accept the label atheist.
So hot air skeptic is your pejorative way of referring to atheists?
So, you are implying that you can’t share the details of what you know for reasons? But you are happy to share the headline fact?
And you think people will believe this?
It’s a convenient fact that the proof can’t be shared. You can make any claim you want then, without having to back it up. Just imply that it’s classified….
We’re supposed believe phoodoo has access to FBI secrets and beyond? Laughable.
Kantian Naturalist,
Also the list seems US-centric. Dawkins and Cox the only exceptions?
I have to ask you the same question. Before the internet the only way you and J-Mac could get your ramblings in front of educated professionals was to shout through the gates. But now you can get taken seriously, or so it seems.
There is no concordance between that and your claim regarding the FBI. But hey, whatever works for you for closure.
It’s why you have to shout through the gates. When you are asked for proof of your claims you instead ask another question.
When do you suppose we’ll be finding this out? What will happen such that our understanding will change? Is there ongoing research?
Its a work in progress. More to come.
OMagain,
Can you prove you went to third grade? Show me the link.
I could never understand why atheists needed the new atheists? What were the new atheists suppose to accomplish that the old atheists had not?
There are already here… If you could remember something I’d know. I have been referring to those findings for the last few months at least…
If the light from the very distant galaxies can get to earth in say few hours or minutes? Can you try to calculate?
No
You already forgot? There were books, magazines, science articles, papers made of paper? Capish?
Who are the educated ones? No you, just in case you also forgot this part… 😉
Sell books, same as ID replacing creation science.
I’ll rephrase the question.
When will the evidence for a young universe outweigh the evidence for an old?
It’s commonly accepted the universe is old. When will it be generally accepted it is not?
Why do you say ‘if’ if it’s already proven?
If there is no ongoing research and it is not proven, then it will never be proven will it?
So the universe is old.
You have not published any paper in any form but think your ill informed criticisms of the work of those who have, and more, are hitting the mark time after time.
It is, I suppose, why you think the way you do in the first place. Thinking that the plague of cancer is a fit punishment for the sin of unwed sex is just one more data point as to why your output is not fit for the purpose of advancing human knowledge.
There are plenty of educated people out there. Some people even have multiple PhDs and still believe very strange things indeed. Education is just a start. Where you take it is up to you.
Fine. Prove it. Have the courage to answer my questions on the other thread. Or did you not learn about integrity in your vast education?
Very scary, forcing theists to no longer force their religious beliefs on other people on the taxpayer’s dime. Forget Bill Maher?
Let’s just assume, for the sake of the argument, that the well educated and published commentators, like our homegrown OMagain, got it some things about the universe wrong.
Let’s say, instead of the accelerated expansion of the universe, let’s assume that say gravity has some amazing light particle accelerating properties and makes the light of the exploding supernovas accelerate faster than speed of light…
What would be the consequences, if that were true, for the sake of the argument? Let’s just assume, for the sake of the argument, that relativity is dead wrong, space and time are garbage, and the light from the exploding supernovas can travel as fast as the “information” between the entangled photons…
Can anybody here, other than our published friend OMagian, think of the consequences, if that were true?
Just for the sake of the argument… 🙂
How about getting funding to prove this theory true? ;-P
Bruce has explained to Jmac many times (and provided several links, one just a couple of days ago) that QM doesn’t prove that things can travel faster than the speed of light, but the guy is unteachable as we all know
If you are following the evidence where it leads why the need to play ‘make beleive’?
Oh wait….this is just another case, in a very long list, of you following the’ evidence that does not yet exist’ but that you wish did.
Which galaxy? How many hours? How many minutes?
Citation for your data should be provided. After all you don’t want people to get the impression that you just pull this stuff out of thin air…..oh wait….nevermind they already do!
What theory are you talking about? the theory of evidence that does not exist yet? Theory of jmac playing make believe?
Uh, well, I don’t think there is any “skeptical movement.” What this list does bring home is that the internet has made certain scientists known to phoodoo. After all, these scientists aren’t saying anything particularly newsworthy within the world of science. They do have in common their attempts to explain scientific ideas and developments to the general public – usually without dumbing things down excessively. What they are generally NOT doing is being skeptical of any scientific consensus.
Again, to qualify for this list, one must be a known scientist, have enough internet presence for phoodoo to have heard of one, and (most critical of all) either be an atheist or having no religious overtones to their writings (and since they are scientists, and most scientists are surely atheists, not mentioning religion becomes phoodoo-default atheism).
Now, a scientist like Kurt Wise, Jonathan Wells, or Michael Behe WOULD belong on this list, since they are for real skeptical of science. Why are they not here?
What are these people skeptical of?
Flint,
To me, the list appears to be “people who have written things that make phoodoo feel less than special”.
ID, and creationism; but I repeat myself.
phoodoo:
keiths:
Still waiting.
Because of the “hot air” part. If you’re religious then you’re not a “hot air” skeptic. Then you’re a cool air one.
I am really offended as your failed to list one of the great ones – Christopher Hitchens.
A list of scientists skeptical of YEC, or of Sagan’s Demon Haunted World, would include every scientist not a member of the Discovery Institute. This would include many tens of thousands, not just those phoodoo has read about on the net.
What, huh?
Hi, Patrick! Welcome back.
No, I think this sort of misses the point of the list. The list isn’t just about atheism. Its about skeptics, that’s a different thing. Skepticism is a church, in which the congregation have their own little list of beliefs, so that they don’t have to think, they just use the skeptics bible, and they know everything.
Furthermore, the list includes a lot of academics, who use their education or notoriety in one field to prognosticate about all kinds of other things, because they are a mathematician, or a physicist-so they are going to tell you all about God or consciousness or evolution, etc…You know, because if you can do theoretical math, then why not. And why shouldn’t every science mainstream media hang on their every word.
Hitchens is an orator and a provocateur. It is sort of what you would expect him to talk about. Are many of his views cray? Yea, probably, but why shouldn’t they be. He is not really coming at anything pretending to be an authority (I am giving him a huge benefit of the doubt, granted). Having said that, I don’t give the universities who invited him as a visiting professor the same benefit. What are his qualifications other than he talks a lot about everything? I am not sure what he actually taught at those universities.
Likewise, Bill Maher is a comedian. Its his job to be a windbag. I feel safe as long as he isn’t being invited onto college campuses to teach courses on string theory, and the behavior of chimps. Or NPR.
And here I thought even Jock would be able to understand this list. Oh well…
Ha. Good one!
Oh, I will give you some. But there are a lot of windbags to go through.
Confusingly, we have two registered members whose display name is Patrick. The avatar is a clue.
phoodoo,
Me neither. Seems your category is a bit arbitrary. Could just as well be “folks in the US media I dislike” .
This is pretty much nonsensical. Is there any atheist organisation that meets regularly in some venue to celebrate their shared atheism?
I agree that we should distrust people who claim to have disproven arguments without fully engaging with them. Based on my limited exposure to them, I think Dawkins fits into this category for philosophy of religion, Harris for philosophy of ethics, and Coyne for philosophy and free will.
But there is nothing wrong with someone explaining the standard positions of science or philosophy in some other field, and then expressing which they prefer and why. Carroll does this in supporting constructivism in ethics.
Nor is there anything wrong with those who explain standard science, but then going on to express a personal, speculative view, as long as they make the difference clear. Tegmark does this with his mathematical multiverse theory.
Most importantly, you omitted the hot air skeptics who express strong positions in biology or physics or philosophy without engaging with or even understanding the theories and arguments in those fields. You can find all sort of these hot air skeptics posting throughout the internet. Some of them right here at TSZ!
You are joking right?
Just in case you aren’t here are a few:
Of course, its only a fraction. Is your denomination listed?
Alan:
I thought WordPress would prevent duplicates. Looks like I’ve overestimated it again.
phoodoo:
keiths:
keiths, later:
phoodoo:
Just give us the first two or three for now.