Why I am no longer a skeptic

I typically watch from the periphery of the skeptic community online (reddit, blogs, etc), so take what I say with a grain of salt.

First, how can someone "no longer be a skeptic"? What does that even mean?

Second, when you reference the skepchick elevator incident as your first and most critical point, you immediately lose credibility. The entire sequence of events and what actually transpired in that event have been gone over again and again and again and at the end of the day, there was nothing to it. So when you make this the basis of your claim, there isn't much there.

Third, rest of the post is rather rambly and, frankly, incoherent. It isn't worth taking point-by-point, though the general feel is such that I'm not convinced the author has much authority and knowledge on the subjects to speak about them.

Lastly, just as a word of warning to people who might strongly identify with skepticism or what not, but strawmen abound and it might just enrage you. You've been warned ;)

I assume you wanted to point out the sexism part. Is there sexism in the "skeptic" community? Certainly, just as there is in just about every community. The assumption this author seems to be making is that feminism is beyond reproach which simply is not true. It certainly should be held to the same critical standards as any other theory. Feminism is not perfect and it certainly has some serious problems. Don't confuse egalitarianism and rejection of certain feminist ideals as sexism. To use feminist's own language, often times the things that the antifeminists attack in feminism are things that can be considered products of patriarchy. Sexism among internet skeptics is no more rampant than sexism in other internet communities. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity should know this. That doesn't make it right. It is just fact.

Looks like he became a plain old hater instead, for one the bits on sexism in XKCD are completely ridiculous...

The author of this essay also has controversial things to say about Bayesians [1] and bronies and masculinity [2].

1. http://plover.net/~bonds/cultofbayes.html

2. http://plover.net/~bonds/newsincerity.html

This is mostly an exercise in begging the question. He assumes it's obvious, for example, that the war in Iraq was not justified and that, therefore, Hitchens is clearly a thug for supporting it. He's ranting against things he just doesn't like, in other words. But I don't really care if you like Dawkins; you have to show me why you think he's wrong.

As someone who probably would identify as a skeptic, I agree with some of the premises here but certainly not his conclusion. He makes some good points about the skeptic community and the serious issues it has, as well as the issues with some of its figureheads. I've never been a big fan of Dawkins but his response to Rebecca Watson over the elevator story was downright hateful. I've always seen Dawkins as part of the militant atheist crowd more than a skeptic but there's a lot more crossover there than perhaps there should be. Phil Plait laid out a lot of this stuff in his "Don't Be A Dick" talk at TAM 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk), which I'd highly recommend.

Fair enough, I can see all that as a reason to distance yourself from the skeptical community. There are a lot of communities I should, in theory, have something in common with (gamer culture, for instance, or his own example of /r/atheism) that I reject because I can't stand much of their behaviour.

However, the author goes too far in outright rejecting skepticism and dismissing its value. I think it is important that there's a group of people protesting homeopathy's use in hospitals and disproving the claims of anti-vaccers and blocking creationist teaching laws. You think psychics provide a little bit of entertainment or false hope? Just a few weeks ago, Amanda Berry was found alive, years after Sylvia Browne had bluntly told her mother that she was dead. Berry's mother died in the interim, thinking her daughter had been murdered.

And the rant on Reagan and bankers comes out of nowhere and commits much the same fallacy as Dawkins "Muslima" comment (minus the Islamaphobia). The idea that, just because there are bigger problems out there, no one should deal with the smaller ones. If someone chooses to devote their time to exposing alt. med. con artists, should we really be mad that they're not curing cancer or investigating financial fraud? It's absurd.

There are several factual errors as well. Right after his complaint that skeptics simply take the word of big pharma, he mentions Ben Goldacre but he doesn't mention that Goldacre is a prominent opponent of big pharma research practices, as are many skeptics, and he's the author of an entire book about them, Bad Pharma. He greatly overstates the use of alternative medicine and seems to have the common misunderstanding that the placebo effect is something you only get from treatments that do nothing. A scam artist treating you nicely gives the same benefit as a doctor treating you nicely, but the doctor will also provide some actual working medicine while he's at it.

I enjoy reading Bond's stuff, he's enviably erudite. But he tends to NOT say what he is (as an identity) now, even though he's pretty clear about what he is not.

A somewhat analogous awakening in my life came when I realized that scientists (ones with real PhDs, grants, and grad assistant) were really quite petty and insecure (like the rest of us.)

This should be titled "Why I am no longer part of the skeptic community".

I find many of his claims absolutely ludicrous, with broad generalizations, personal attacks, and failure to recognize what he criticizes in his own argument. The angry tone of the piece doesn't make it particularly enjoyable to read, either.

I hadn't seen this post in awhile. Thanks for posting it!

Might want to add a (2011) to the title (judging by the "comments" link at the bottom.)

EDIT: Maybe also remove the anchor tag - but perhaps that was intentional?

It's funny, I actually agree 100% with the author on skpeticism being blind to the fact that we only understand reality via mental models (all models are wrong, but some are useful, as they say), and science being more of a social process with it's own biases and ossified traditions than a grand search for capital-t Truth.

And yet, I also disagree completely with his politics. I used to be both a skeptic and a progressive. Now I'm spiritual and a reactionary. I believe that drugs, meditation and religious experiences can help us access aspects of reality that are normally invisible. I also believe that democracy is an outdated system of government, and the particular brand of feminism the author defends is just another batshit crazy ideology. (I'm all for the Sheryl Sandbergs of the world, but when people start talking about patriarchy and privilege they might as well be talking about sin and Satan for all I care).

Also, why are people on the left so keen to defend Islam at the drop of a hat? Is it just an "enemy of my enemy" kind of deal? (We hate America, Radical Islamists hate America, hey, these Muslims seem pretty smart doncha know!) I have respect for FEMEN and other second-wave feminist handouts who at least try and keep their worldview consisistent and criticise the treatment of women in Muslim countries.

I don't know what that makes me, other than "odd".

A horrid, ignorant and painfully hypocritical article. The author is clearly still a skeptic (if we are using the actual definition of the word) and is also guilty of the same kind of ignorant hate speech towards skeptics as that of which he accuses skeptics of towards religiosity and feminism.

This link pops up from time to time.

Skeptic in this context is slang for a atheist who has no ideas that deviate from mainline US Democratic party; Against sexism, against Islam-o-phobia, "pro science"

yawn. you are a product of your environment.

Is there a way to filter posts like this? I understand things like "why I am no longer using Java" are here. But this is just off-topic.

Being a skeptic means you are someone who is skeptical. It does not come with a membership to a club. Just because you dislike some other people who are skeptical, does not mean skeptics are bad and you need to stop being one. I am sure you dislike some people who wear pants too, but you continue to wear pants anyways.

All that said, his assessment of the people he dislikes is incredibly superficial and childish. What exactly was the point that you hoped to make by posting it?